Abortion's Morality and the Candidates

I reiterate my question from Sept 18th. I still haven't heard anyone address my question from last week...Is there a moral imperative of potential parents to eliminate as much suffering as possible for their offspring? If so, then doesn't knowingly imposing life on another which has a high probability of causing suffering seem to be an immoral and unethical decision.

I personally think only wealthy, well-connected, well-adjusted, well-educated people should have children rather than the current ovarian lottery of rubes and redecks having kids they can't afford then wanting government to subsidize their kids. There would be fewer children under my philosophy, but there would be a much higher likelihood of each one succeeding and flourishing.

I was not able to meet that standard for myself and had no children as a result, despite my wife and I both having advanced degrees from excellent schools and a stable marriage. We didn't believe that even we met the criteria to have a child. Life is hard enough without unnecessary obstacles like insufficient parents from low backgrounds.

I notice most people posting here continue to overlook those who suggest that if it takes two people to make a baby, then two people should be controlling their reproduction. If both parties were doing so, then I betcha there would be a huge drop in the number of unintended pregnancies.

God permits more abortions than anyone. It's euphemistically entitled "miscarriage".

Isn't anyone else wondering why European teenagers aren't making babies at the same rates as US teenager, despite having sex at the same rate? Are our children particularly stupid? Or are we? What are they doing that we aren't?

Anonymous:

You must have missed just a few posts ago, when I refuted your point before you even made it. A human blastocyst is, scientifically, a human being. Once a sperm cell fertilizes a human ovum, the result is a unique human being. That's the moment a new human life begins, not implantation or birth or when the fetus starts to look cute or any other arbitrary moment.

A blastocyte is not a human being. It may become one, eventually.

Gentlemen, in order to make this a mere academic exercise, why not exercise restraint over your sperm and either use a condom properly, or get a vasectomy? Use some self-control, quit hiding behind your partner's skirts.

Should she be taking responsibility and control too? YES. But why not view it as your responsibility too? Particularly as you do not have any legal say over what will happen after the sperm get away from you.

Many people are going to rape and murder regardless of the laws! Should we eliminate these laws? Abortion is an killing act on a pre-born child! That child is not an appendix or tumor! It is an individual that rely's on another for life, just like the severly handi-capped or the mentally retarded.
Your bias shows with your words pro-choice and anti-abortion. Why don't you use pro-abortion and pro-life? Many pro-lifers, especially in the Catholic camp, oppose capital punishment as well as euthanasia and embryionic stem cell research {and destruction of frozen embryo's}. Most pro-abortionists are only passionate about abortion!

"I have total respect for those who believe that life begins at conception. I do not. My belief is that when a fetus is viable, when it can survive on its own, then it is a human being. My beliefs are based, not on religion, but on my own sense of morality. I do not want others imposing their religious beliefs on me."

All well and good -- except that it's a SCIENTIFIC FACT that a human being's life begins at the moment of fertilization, not a mere "religious belief." I work in education, and therefore have seen plenty of science textbooks that will make this point rather clear. Any science textbook will either not include any time as the beginning of a human being's life, or it will declare it to be when a sperm fertilizes an ovum. In other words, the pro-life position, though held by many religious people, isn't based on religion, itself.

Well...99% effective assumes everyone is semi-sober, gets it on the moment the erection takes place and that none of the pre-seminal fluid didn't get away (often has some sperm in there), and everyone knows what they're doing.

So 90% is trying to take into account inexperience, sloppy technique and negotiation. You know, 'real world' stuff.

But yeah, guys, why don't do your part to keep the little swimmers under control and not take the chance they'll land in an 'inhospitable' environment? Condoms are INEXPENSIVE, NON-INVASIVE and DAMNED EFFECTIVE. No hormonal side-effects! No surgery! They even come in different colours, sizes, shapes and textures!

KEVIN:
Sex is optional. Birth control is an option. No one gets pregnant by chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sex, even within a marriage, is not always optional. Rape, even within a marriage, happens.

Women who aren't sexually active often aren't on the pill, and rapists aren't known to wear condoms.

And birth control is subject to failure - condoms break, and certain oral medications, especially antibiotics, can interfere with the absorption of oral contraceptives. You'd be amazed at how many women don't know that, and how often doctors fail to mention it. In fact, no doctor I ever had during my fertile years ever warned me that I needed too use a backup method of contraception when prescribing antibiotics for me. I found out that little tidbit of information the hard way.

Tom Paine writes

"Marc, if you knew anything about the debate, you'd know that Clinton and the Democrats didn't do a damn thing about partial birth abortion."

I know the Republicans blocked Democratic amendments to the ban so that Clinton had to veto it. It could have been put in place years earlier, but Republicans were more interested in scoring points than "saving babies".

"Clinton vetoed the measure and the Democrats wanted to abort the legislation (note the irony) entirely, but were pushed into dealing with it by a REPUBLICAN congress and the PUBLIC, who is against the practice. You know it and everyone here knows it."

Except that it didn't end late term abortions, not one! Isn't it true that now they simply inject the fetus with lethal drugs?
WOW - that really changed things a lot!

"Adding "health" to the measure was the Democrats' way of making it worthless"

Because people like you think that women are getting late term abortions for unserious reasons. You don't trust people to make decisions without big government looking over their shoulders. Fascist much?

"Your point about the GOP not taking any action to stop abortion is simply wrong."

You'd have a point if the Republicans did anything to end abortion. They haven't. Bush had a Republican Senate, House and SCOTUS and did nothing.

"But this isn't a Democrat or Republican issue - it's a moral issue."

I'd agree with you, except that people on your side constantly use abortion to beat Democrats over the head with. The fact is the Republicans have no interest in ending abortion, period. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Yet your side wants to use the moral issue of abortion to help one party and hurt the other. As long as your side keeps pimping out "the unborn" to get votes, I'll keep pointing out the truth.

You can continue to pretend that the Republicans really want to end legal abortion, but you have nothing to back up your assertion.
Oh, and you need to work on your little flames - they are rather weak.
Better luck next time!

Marc Edward wrote:

"So you're saying Clinton and the Democrats didn't go as far as the Republicans so it doesn't count? What part of "democracy" and "compromise" don't you get? You are claiming that "health" wasn't a good enough clause because we cannot trust doctors and patients to make good decisions, that a woman would "kill" a baby because of an ingrown toenail, and all doctors are so amoral that they'd go along with it. Apperantly you are the only moral person in this country, and the rest of us are suspect. Must be hard to be so pure!"

Marc, if you knew anything about the debate, you'd know that Clinton and the Democrats didn't do a damn thing about partial birth abortion.

Clinton vetoed the measure and the Democrats wanted to abort the legislation (note the irony) entirely, but were pushed into dealing with it by a REPUBLICAN congress and the PUBLIC, who is against the practice. You know it and everyone here knows it.

Adding "health" to the measure was the Democrats' way of making it worthless while still being able to tell the public that they were "compromising" when in fact they were stalling and posturing for their abortion supporters.

Negotiating in BAD FAITH isn't NEGOTIATING or COMPROMISE.

Your point about the GOP not taking any action to stop abortion is simply wrong. But this isn't a Democrat or Republican issue - it's a moral issue.

So, don't give me your bulls*&% about being so "pure." Do you have to be "pure" to oppose a Mengele-style procedure like Partial Birth Abortion? It's a sick procedure that should offend ANYONE - left, right or center.

It's a no brainer, except for you. Pun intended.

Apparently, to you morality is relative and the procedure is just fine so long as you get to make your little points on a website blog.

BETTER LUCK NEXT TIME.

To Tom Paine -
So you're saying Clinton and the Democrats didn't go as far as the Republicans so it doesn't count?
What part of "democracy" and "compromise" don't you get?
You are claiming that "health" wasn't a good enough clause because we cannot trust doctors and patients to make good decisions, that a woman would "kill" a baby because of an ingrown toenail, and all doctors are so amoral that they'd go along with it. Apperantly you are the only moral person in this country, and the rest of us are suspect. Must be hard to be so pure!
Anyway, you totally ignore the fact that late term abortion continues to this day because the "ban" was only against one form of late term abortion. As far as we know you're "ban" hasn't prevented on.
The fact remains that despite their claims, Republicans don't give a rat's rear end about saving the unborn, just getting your time, money and vote.
Better luck next time!

Marc Edward wrote:

"Clinton and the Democrats did support a "late term abortion ban", and the Republican blocked it because it had an exception for the health of the mother. It'd be inaccurate to say Democrats fought against it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the ban passed by the Republicans and Bush only ban one form of late term abortion? Doesn't that mean it didn't prevent one abortion, and late term abortion continues to this day?"

You're wrong, Marc.

Clinton and the Democrats did NOT support a partial birth abortion BAN. They did support farcical legislation that allowed for the procedure to continue where the "health" of the mother was at stake. Republicans wanted the procedure banned except in cases where the LIFE of the mother was in danger.

As you well know, a generic, all-inclusive provision for "health" could include ANYTHING - ingrown toenail, bladder control, whatever. There was a study conducted at the time which indicated that in the reported cases of late term abortion, the mother's life was never in danager. Such "heath" language, supported by Clinton and the Democrats (a wholly owned subsidiary of the abortion extremist lobby) made the "ban" nothing of the sort.

Marc Edward wrote:

"Clinton and the Democrats did support a "late term abortion ban", and the Republican blocked it because it had an exception for the health of the mother. It'd be inaccurate to say Democrats fought against it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the ban passed by the Republicans and Bush only ban one form of late term abortion? Doesn't that mean it didn't prevent one abortion, and late term abortion continues to this day?"

You're wrong, Marc.

Clinton and the Democrats did NOT support a partial birth abortion BAN. They did support farcical legislation that allowed for the procedure to continue where the "health" of the mother was at stake. Republicans wanted the procedure banned except in cases where the LIFE of the mother was in danger.

As you well know, a generic, all-inclusive provision for "health" could include ANYTHING - ingrown toenail, bladder control, whatever. There was a study conducted at the time which indicated that in the reported cases of late term abortion, the mother's life was never in danager. Such "heath" language, supported by Clinton and the Democrats (a wholly owned subsidiary of the abortion extremist lobby) made the "ban" nothing of the sort.

Anyone who, like Sally Quinn, holds the backward and absurd belief that a fetus is only a human being when "viable" and can live on his or her own outside the mother, should read this article by Mona Charen about abortion survivors before pulling the lever for an abortion extremist like Obama:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODA2YzVmYjFmZDRhZjRlY2IzNDdmZGU1Y2MyNDk1YmM=

Dwight writes
"wrong, you sure are ignorant...no one is without sin...except for one...abortion such a different issue than the crap you posted and totally different...abortion does not have collateral damage..."

You're the one that claims that even people who support the RIGHT to abortion carry the blood of the dead "babies". Again, your logic means anyone who voted for President Bush carries the blood of every dead Iraqi citizen on his hands, which includes a lot of dead children and women. My guess is you want other people take responsibility for their actions, but not yourself.
Can't have it both ways.
If you support war, you are willing to support the killing of innocents.

Better luck nect time!

Side Question to all the people who want Legal Protection for "life begining at conception" -
How is that even possible?
How can the government protect 'life" from the moment of conception?
It is not possible, period!

Good article. Very thoughtful and I hope it inspires quite a few people.

I would say, however that I can't understand how you say that life begins when a fetus "can survive on its own". You realize that a 6-month-old cannot survive on its own? A toddler probably cannot survive on its own, though there's a possibility, I guess.

I think you mean something other than "survive on its own". That's the whole point of parenting.

"Women don't get pregnant all by themselves. Seems to me that while everybody is shaking their fingers at "those" women, they should be chiding the men who were involved in the conception as well."

Agreed. I'm glad someone finally raised this issue. I have read many posts here that take the position "if a woman is not ready to have a baby, she should not have sex!". Why put all the responsibility on the woman? Isn't sexual freedom one of the things women worked so hard for in the 60's and 70's? Why would we want to go backwards? It takes Two to Tango, so to speak. What makes it even worse is that the man usually leaves the scene afterwards, and is not in any way legally responsible for the child, leaving the woman to shoulder the entire burden. If we want true sexual freedom, people need to start practicing safe and responsible sex, ie, use of condoms. In addition, the laws need to change to put equal responsibility on the man and the woman should a pregnancy result.

" Marc Edward:
...
Dwight writes
"a women carries the sin of murder for her abortion...
a doctor carries the sin of genocide for the abortions he performed...
a supporter of abortion carries the sin of genocide for all the abortion murders..."

By your logic the only people who are without sin are those who have murdered abortion providers and bombed abortion clinics. By your logic, anyone who voted for President Bush carries the sin of every Iraqi civilian killed in the occupation, which includes thousands of kids.
...
September 17, 2008 10:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments"

wrong, you sure are ignorant...no one is without sin...except for one...abortion such a different issue than the crap you posted and totally different...abortion does not have collateral damage...those who support it do so knowing what they are doing...those who do it know what they are doing....since you comment on other posters and have no opinion yourself...respect others opinions and just post your own...

"After all, all he has to do is put on a condom correctly and voila! 90% of the time his sperm are prevented from escaping his control ..."

Actually it's greater than 99% according to some studies, but who's counting ;-)

Let me start by saying that, I am Catholic. I do not believe in abortion for myself, but that is my decision.

1) I do not think the government should regulate a woman's body. I'm a believer that if you give someone an inch they'll take a mile. When does it stop? B/c if they can regulate abortion, will they regulate access to birth control next... sex education? I forgot, in some places that is being regulated.

2) The thing I find the MOST interesting is that people who are pro-life tend to also be pro-death penalty. Someone help me understand... the argument is life is important and we are not God and Thou shall not kill. If life is important then ALL life should be important no matter how vile someone has lived. If thou shall not kill then how do we justify putting people on death row. Like time I checked that is killing. Remember we are not God. Who are we to decide who lives or dies? And before people point out it's not the same because they are murders and bad people... I encourage you to read your Bible. Moses and David were murders, and Paul was described as vile, BUT yet God used them to do His will.

Yonkers, New York
19 September 2008

My position on abortion is that a woman who feels the need to have it, should have it. That is her own business.

I also firmly believe that government has no business interfering or meddling in a decision that is strictly personal and private and wrapped in a moral dimension.

If government makes the mistake of intruding into what is strictly a personal and private matter, it is guilty of violating a woman's individual liberty. It runs smack up against the Bill of Rights.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Women don't get pregnant all by themselves. Seems to me that while everybody is shaking their fingers at "those" women, they should be chiding the men who were involved in the conception as well.

After all, all he has to do is put on a condom correctly and voila! 90% of the time his sperm are prevented from escaping his control, and he won't have to rely upon her remembering to take a pill (if that's the method she uses), insert the diaphragm correctly with spermicide, etc.

Both parties are responsible for birth control.

Yes, it is possible McCain "changed" his stated position. He has done similar things with other issues, like the Confederate flag.

Abortion is always talked about like it's an issue of "life". But in my mind, it's an issue of potential intelligent life. We value people as adults, and we nurture children because they have the capacity to become intelligent adults. It's the potentiality we look for. I don't know of anyone who would say an embryo is intelligent - or as intelligent as an adult human.

The reason we allow abortion is because that potential life - and an embryo is alive - is not as valued as an adult; it is not the same as an adult. I like that you made that quite clear. We also have learned that if a mother has a child she does not want, that child suffers, sometimes terribly. And the result is an angry, unhappy adult, capable of doing a great deal of harm. So better to end it early, rather than later.

But it is an issue of morality. It should not be an easy or quick decision. But it is the mother's decision. That should NEVER be taken away from her.

I agree that Palin's approval of her daughter keeping her illegitimate child - even though she is only 17 yrs old and could not possibly raise it herself without the help of her family - ignores the reality of her needing to be thankful she actually has a decision to make. What worries me is that at her young age & from what I've seen of Bristol, she does not seem to have the backbone to stand up to her mother, if she thought it was the right thing to do. I'm afraid that in the future, she will regret her mother's (and the Party's) powerful influence. I'm especially afraid that she will be pushed into a shotgun wedding, followed by a bitter divorce. One mistake should not be compounded by another. It makes me wonder what kind of birth control training she had. I read an article recently about birth control in her school district. Alaska provides free counseling, schools evidently don't prevent birth control counselors from coming in & talking to the students. But a clinic counselor said many teens don't know services are available for free, evidently it's not widely publicized. It makes me wonder if her mother would have let her get sex ed teaching.

My sister had a friend in school who didn't know anything about sex. Her mother evidently would not let her participate in any sex ed classes, and she severely restricted her access at home. My sister said she asked her some questions that my sister didn't know the answer to, so she got some booklets & tried to give them to the girl; the girl's mother stopped her, told my sister that her daughter would learn soon enough about sex after she got into the marriage bed. She forbade my sister from ever coming to see her friend again. I wonder what happened to that girl.

A few notes on Ms. Quinn's thoughtful column:

1. Yes, despite the war and the economy, abortion will not go away as a primary issue. Our society presumes its existence in many ways, and is structured around it to a greater extent than we realize. There are, and will continue to be, people who passionately oppose it.

2. Ms. Quinn is right that Sarah Palin's absolutism is more consistent than McCain's view. However, we often draw distinctions in the law; e.g., (i) allowing killing in war or for capital punishment, but not otherwise; (ii) punishing "heat of passion" manslaughter less severely than pre-meditated murder. One need not be an absolutist on any side of this question.

(In effect, the McCain position is that abortion is justifiable homicide in the case of rape and incest -- justifiable because the rapist should not be permitted to choose pregnancy for another).

3. Should "doctors" be executed, if one follows pro-life logic? Well, if abortion is in any way illegal, licensed doctors will not be performing them. We needn't worry about the beloved family doc going off to jail. Putting that aside, yes, if abortion is illegal, those who perpetrate it would need to punished -- again, a sliding scale of justice could be employed, taking into account divergent views of fetal life.

4. There has indeed been recent Catholic criticism of pro-choice politicians. However, this stems in part from Nancy Pelosi's, and then Joe Biden's, insistence that historic Catholic doctrine was unclear on abortion. I have a book called the Early Christian Encyclopedia, which clearly catalogues the early church fathers' opposition to abortion. The Greeks and Romans practiced abortion frequently, and had "progressive" sexual views; the Christians favored monogomy and abhorred abortion.

(Augustinian debates over when the "soul" is created were separate and distinct from the church's position that abortion is an act of violence in derogation of God's will).

5. Ms. Quinn argues that women should not be "forced" to have a child. However, such women do have a choice in whether to avoid pregnancy through responsible contraception. The sad truth about our abortion figures is not that American drug companies cannot manufacture a decent contraceptive, but that many, many women are dispening with such products and using abortion as the first option, not the last one, in avoiding pregnancy.

6. I disagree with Ms. Quinn's statement that she believes life begins at viability, not conception. Biologically, it is indisputable that life begins at conception. Viability matters because that is the point at which it appears "selfish" for a woman to choose an abortion because the fetus could survive on its own (and be adopted if the mother does not want it). The presence or absence of selfishness does not, however, equate to the beginning of life -- either as a matter of religion or biology.

In Supreme Court jargon, the state's interest in protecting the fetus trumps the mother's privacy interest at the point of viability -- again, based on the "selfishness" principle. However, the Supreme Court did not, and could not, explain why the fetal interest should not win out earlier. Likewise, Barack Obama said earlier this year that the relative value of a pre-viable fetus was "above my pay grade." It is odd that pro-choice proponents -- often viewed as more enlighted and intellectual than their pro-life counterparts -- have been punting on this question since at least 1973.

7. Here is my final point -- the true "moral" point on abortion. Four months into pregancy, a fetus is a very recognizable entity with a beating heart, human body, full human attributes. With advancing technology, that four month old fetus may even be "viable" some day. Why is it o.k. to kill it? Or, to be more blunt, why is it o.k. to smash its skull, sever its limbs, and otherwise rip it apart? If you can't do that to an infant, why can you do it to a fetus?

This is why I support John McCain's position: there is no good answer to the question above. If you want "choice," then choose to have sex and contraception responsibly. The drug companies have plenty of ways to help you do that -- you can get to 99.99999% protection pretty easily. Beyond that, it is not o.k. to kill the fetus, unless you think it is also o.k. to kill your neighbor. The two are not as different as the pro-choice world would have us think.

Though I believe life begins at conception, and am pro-life obviously, I am not 100% for Roe v. Wade being overturned. My faith plays a big role in my stance, but I understand that you can't legislate righteousness. However, it does bother me when people defend abortion with statements like: "But there are too many women, who, for a myriad number of reasons are not prepared to be mothers and should not be forced to be."

Those arguments are fallacies because no one is forcing them to be mothers. Motherhood is a consequence of a preventable action. Sex is optional. Birth control is an option. No one gets pregnant by chance. When you have sex without birth control or contraception, you know there's a chance you'll get pregnant. Your choice, your risk, no one forcing you.

--
Please See, & Read, Robber Baron McCain in Action: Time To Retire "Friend":

Pleaza, See How John McCain & ‘Friends’ [Co.] got away with squandering Tax-Payers deposits, via his banking ’FRiENDS” in the 1990’s. Then ‘Evangelical Run ENRON’ now Evangelical bankrupt FANNi-May & Freddie Mac as if their (not our?) Uncle & Aunt SAM!?

Prophetically speaking they (evangelical JUDEO-JU’s, turned into JUDEO-Christs, play out their (not our) or Enforces them Evil Biblio “Drunkin racist Noah Storys & their “JACOB ULTiMATE SWiNDLE “Story, where he [Jacob/Israel] Robs his Uncle LEBAN & screws His own Cousins & Swindles ESEAUs Inheritance [similar to Ishmael, Hagar’s son Too] ; All this via Unsuspecting dumb god (not OUR G-D) song & story & Flocks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five AND

Please see Mass Murdering & Mass Destructor, Captain John McCain Dropping Napalm, before being Shot-Down in ViET NAM , and Killing Kids or Maiming Children & their Familys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev2dEqrN4i0

AMAZiNG () No GRACe!

--- THEREFORE:

VOTE: The ‘APOCALYPT-ARiAN’ Prophecy!

VOTE: OBAMA-BiDEN team , GOG (Truth) thinkers, not McCain-Palin team ,MAGOG (Illusion) , not-thinking!

--

.........P.............
.........E.............
.........A.............
.........C.............
L O V e R O C K
.........R.............
.........O.............
.........L.............
.........L.............

-- VOTE:

..........................OBAMA for PREZ!

...........................................BiDEN vPREZ 2009!

--

LiSTEN-UP:

WHAT "C H A N G E"? WHAT Can the Same Ole, Same BUSH-CHANEY-McCAiN-PALin Delusion -TEAM "C H A N G E?"

Did Ye Forget Who Got-Us in the Middle-East Quandary in the 1st Place. Example:

REMEMBER & do not Forget:

The SAViNGS & LOAN Scandal [initiated by John McCain et al 1990‘s], the ENRON Electric & Gas Scandal [1999-2002] and The now Defunct quazi Governmental FANNiE May & FREDDiE MAC & Korean Purchasers Scandal [started 2007-current]! And also their Greasing McCains Oil Lobby ‘Friends‘, and their Armageddon Desert-Storm, False “WMD“ delusional BiBLio- fulfillment Pushers , via false stories to start Wars! Or Pre-Empt such DiViSion of Nations [See any BiBLE @ LUKE:12:51 & 14:26 et seq] , as we are witnessing like pushing Mother/Father of Sweet RUSSiA’s, Buttons …?? PLEAZEa!

Vote: BiDEN/OBAMA.

--- VOTE: Marriage is Between a real-Man (MAVORiTE) & a real-Lady (SPORADE) , interesting both candidates agree!

THEY Have "Religios Jealousy Psychosis!" With acute “Synergetic-less-Split/Minded Thinking” , also “DOUBLE STANDARDS PSYCHOSiS’s” , a Dangerous Molotov Cocktail so to spaketh TRUTH (opposite of MYTH-illogical SuperStupidStitious thinking)!

--- WELCOME to the 'AQUARiUS-AGE' (Astronomy thinking, NOT-Astrology/Zodiac) evolving out of the 'PiSCES-Age' (Based on Equinox Allignment Storys, not Zodiac nor Biblical Story’s).

--------------------------------------------------

Pay'd For & Approved By the "American JO{KTANian-Race of the "EC{LAT-i-ON Party” & "O.U.R. Votary Association U.S.A." 2013+, a Prophecy whose TiME is now Cometh, for ALL those who Seek , the NEW Song, comming from O.U.R. Old Songs & Story’s!

--- iMPORTANT: Please See this Linko:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector

WE 'Apocalyptarian Nationalis despise 'Neo-Conservative Moveants', instead, we, The-HUE{MATE} Kinds, not like them HUMANS un-kinds, are "JO{KTAN"ly, CONSCiENTious Objectors & UnITERS, unlike them "PELEG"ian 'DiViDERS, aka 'WAR' Mongers, aka ARMAGEDON [Biblio Maniacs]Lovers!

Seems to me that if men don't want to deal with the possibility of an abortion, they should prevent their sperm from running around free and unfettered.

Bag 'em, boys! But even then be aware that accidents do happen.

Because, women don't just spontaneously become pregnant. We're not hermaphrodites, there is another party involved (usually). We show what we've been "up to", we incur ALL the risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth, so that is why it is our decision to end a pregnancy or risk trying to carry it to term.

And it's no one else's business but my own. I have two kids, I'm DONE. My husband and I had a condom bust a few years ago, I went and got emergency contraception within 24 hours, no problems. No more kids. Not interested!

Paul B:
Lepidopteryx,

That is true; however, a tapeworm does not have a spiritual soul. You are not required to save the lives of those things which will pass away completely into the dust from which they were formed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul,
I believe that all living things from slime molds to blue whales, from blue-green algae to giant redwoods, have souls.
To me, murder isn't killing something with a soul - it's killing maliciously, killing for the sake of killing - as Johnny Cash sang in Folsom Prison Blues, "sho(o)t(ing) a man in Reno, just to watch him die."

Any time another living thing takes up residence inside my body, I have the final say as to whether it gets to stay there.

Paul B.

A spiritual soul is the image of a non-existent being! You must be kidding me. That's a warm and fuzzy idea with absolutely no scientific merit. If we were kids, it would be a cute little fairy tale but we ain't kids.

Evidently, the B. stands for Balderdash!

Lepidopteryx,

That is true; however, a tapeworm does not have a spiritual soul. You are not required to save the lives of those things which will pass away completely into the dust from which they were formed.

On the other hand, from the moment of conception, a human has an indestructible, spiritual soul in the image of God Himself, and is therefore sacred in his own small way, and we are bound to keep it alive under any reasonable circumstances.

Lepi,

That depends ... is it a baby tape worm?

A tapeworm is alive and has its own DNA. But if one is inside my body, even if I deliberately ate contaminated food and thus put it there myself, I am not required to allow it to stay in my body.

"...go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:3)

Jack P,

Pro-life, anti-life, pro-death, anti-death, anti-choice, pro-choice .... Whatever?!

When it's inside your body, then you will have a say. Otherwise, your opinion is completely irrelevant.

You are pathetic!

"pro choice or anti-abortion" should be "anti-life or pro-life"

http://aliarandamurderer.blogspot.com/2008/09/punished-with-baby.html

Life Begins BEFORE Conception

The unfertilized egg is alive, and is a genetically unique individual. All it needs is one sperm to begin its journey to becoming a human being. Why isn't there a moral imperative to help each egg to fulfill its intended purpose? (Some people do think there is, so want to ban contraceptives.) Why is there no mourning over the hundreds of millions of eggs that go to waste every month?

I think this argument is absurd, but no more absurd than to say the fertilized egg has full human rights. Funny how those who want "limited government" seek to extend its jurisdiction over wombs and perhaps next, eggs and sperm.

abortion is not the government's job to worry about. looking realistically at risk and reward, there is more to lose by banning abortion. i dont like the idea any more than anyone else, but the fact is that people will seek them regardless of the law. how does it benefit anyone to turn doctors and women into criminals? what is the cost of enforcing such a law - enforcement, investigation, jailing transgressors, caring for unwanted children, etc? would we not be better off to offer support to women so they arent inclined to abort pregnancies than to turn against them?

no one is for abortion, but im not for bringing children into the world under dire circumstances that put them into a life of misery. morality is nice on paper, but we have to live with the real world repercussions.

Agnostic asks,

"Question for the anti-choice people: if a woman spontaneously aborts, should she be punished?"

No but God should be jailed for murder! God (i.e. nature) is the most profilic abortionist of all time but I guess it's "do as he says, not as he does"!

Good grief.

rB-freedom-for-all and freestinker seem to be the only rational thinkers, here. Lori seems to be answering a different question, entirely.

Interestingly, more than half the population will never get pregnant. Equaly as interesting, a woman's body many times actually aborts the fetus, if it is mal-formed or otherwise incapable of servival.

Question for the anti-choice people: if a woman spontaneously aborts, should she be punished?

Could someone please tell me the actual Biblical basis for being anti-abortion?"

THOU SHALT NOT KILL!!!!!

In my opinion, viability (or any stage before birth) is completely irrelevant to the question of the legality of abortion. What matters is the location. If it's inside the mother's body, her decision should rule the day no matter what stage pregnancy. It's inside her body so it's her decision.

If something (alive or otherwise) is inside my body, then my opinion is the only one that should carry any legal weight. If it's inside your body, then likewise ... you get to make the call. It's really that simple.

r-b freedom for all,

Your arguments for abortion to be legal make the least sense in this whole comment section. Abortion is still legal and yet, my friend is foster mother to a baby addicted to crack. Making abotion legal has done nothing to stop unwed pregnancies from happening nor has it stopped unwanted babies from coming into dysfunctional homes. As someone already stated several times. The basic choice a woman has is to decide whether or not to have sex. Sex will produce a baby if it is the right time and in a womans cycle and if there is nothing done at the time of sex to prevent it. When a woman makes the choice to have sex she has already made the choice to have a baby. The problem with our thinking today is that we want to live in sin and then destroy the consequenses. But God has a way of bringing those consequenses to our lives even when we find a way to abolish them. Example 1- I can have sex and not worry about getting pregnant because I can abort the baby. Ahhhh but now I have a sexual transmitted disease! hmmmm. God works in mysterious ways.

Example 2 - my husband and I care only about how much money we make having a child right now will mess that up. So lets have an abortion! ahhhh but now my husband lost his 6 figure job and what are we gonna do. hmmmmm. Again God works in mysterious ways.

We can only obey God or we can disobey him with dire consequenses. Wake up America. Abortion isn't just about Morality it is about Life! and God protects the innocent.

MICHELLE wrote:
"When there is the option of adoption available, I don't think that the argument that a woman shouldn't be forced to be a mother is valid."

What about the fact that any pregnancy involves certain health risks? What about the fact that a 15 or 16 year old girl may not be emotionally ready for a pregnancy? What about the fact that alot of the women who would be forced to carry the baby to term under your rules would have no medical insurance, no maternity leave from their jobs, no long-term disability pay if the pregnancy did have complications? Are you willing to pay for all that in your plan? What about the fact most people who adopt want white or asian babies and the babies who would be born to the women who compromise the largest percentage of abortions (blacks and hispanics) are difficult to place? Are you willing to adopt these babies?

Just taking the simplist approach that these women can and should carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption is overly simplistic. There are real and important issues with the "just adopt it" approach that need to be considered and resolved.

A better title would have been "Reproductive Morality". It ranges from contraception prohibition to unrestricted abortion. It is a very private matter. Do the American People want the government to determine reproductive morality? Where do the "Less Government" proponents stand? Does life begin at conception? Are not spermatozoa referred to as alive or dead. Is an ovum alive. How much different is ending life in the early stages from preventing life to occur? American Citizens hold varying morale opinions on these issues. There is no one consensus agreed upon by all. Therefore it should be a private matter. Answering the abortion is murder argument. Presently abortion is not murder under the law. If the law is changed who is quilty? The mother? The doctor? What is the punishment? Mosaic law states "Thou shall not kill". It is an all inclusive commandment. Yet, Moses's top lieutenant, Joshua slaugtered men, women, and children in the city states of Caanan. Is war murder? What are the limits of self defense? Conclusion: reproductive morality is and should remain a private matter.

Is anyone really happy with the status quo ?

One million plus abortions a year in the US ?
Nine of ten DS children aborted ? (hence joy for Sarah Palin's choice)
The small but growing number of sex-based (read: female) abortions within our Asian community ?

Will abortion only become a liberal issue when gay unborns are facing abortion by ..ahem.. liberal parents ? Be afraid... the science is very close.

I was once a young liberal feminist who supported 100% choice. I too believed the failed mantra: legal, safe, and rare.

As a young parent, I've abandoned my selfish "I am King" mentality and become very aware of my responsibilities as a parent to my children and my views on abortion have become well "conservative". I think now .. a parent has a moral, ethical, and practical responsibility to their children.. both born and unborn.

I must say the Catholic Bishops are right... a unique and separate (although dependent) life form is created at conception. Its biology 101 folks. Those who claim otherwise are foolish deniers of truth. How can a liberal defend their opposition to the death penalty for the worst criminals ? but support death for the most innocent ?

The Globe newspaper ran a multi-page feature on the few woman who have had abortions and speak out proudly about that fact. The writers expressed astonishment that so few people speak about their abortions - afterall its just another medical procedure right ? The writers asked repeatedly why are women so hesitant ? Of course, we know the answer... at some level.. we all know a potential human life.. a potential daughter, son, mother, father, worker, fellow human being has been lost.. and lost forever. It is very sad.

When human life begins? There at least four forms of human life, the first three are in the mather's body: human embrio, human nonviable fetus, human viable fetus and a born human person ( or human being). The earliest recorded viable gestational age is 20 weeks and five days. Before that, abortion is NOT killing of a human person,
is termination of the life of a nonviable fetus.
There a difference, but many just don't get it.

The argument based on the "viability" of the fetus will always be fraught with peril. Many here have pointed out that the point at which the fetus is viable (or able to survive outside of the womb) will certainly change as our medical technology advances. The fact that a 7 month-old fetus even has a chance of surviving today versus 30 or 40 years ago is testament to our rapidly advancing technology. One can only expect this trend to continue. Perhaps at some point the survival of even first trimester fetuses will be commonplace. So this argument will always be faced with a moving target - which will always tend to favor the pro-life side, as they can now correctly say that the fetus can survive outside of the body, hence it is a "life". Those on the pro-choice side really need to reconsider this argument.

Sally,

I find it interesting that you define your position as pro-choice instead of pro-abortion and define the opposite position as anti-abortion instead of pro-life.
You say that a woman should have the choice about whether or not she is ready to become a mother. I do not disagree, but rather believe the choice should be made before a baby is conceived. A person who chooses to have sex has made the choice to engage in behavior that could lead to pregnancy. If a woman does not want to have a baby, then she should not have sex.
If a woman decides to be irresponsible and becomes pregnant, then she can choose to give the baby up for adoption.
Some choices have consequences that we do not like, but they are consequences that we cannot make disappear. The consequence of unprotected sex can be pregnancy. A baby, or fetus that has the ability to become a baby if not aborted, should not be disposed of because a woman made a poor choice. When there is the option of adoption available, I don't think that the argument that a woman shouldn't be forced to be a mother is valid.
Of course in cases of incest or rape, the woman didn't have the initial choice and while I would not choose to have an abortion, I would feel that the exception could be made in the law.
In the case of harm to a mother, we are taking two lives into consideration and again I think that there is reasonable argument to have an exception in the law for that as well.
Perhaps there are woman that would take extreme measures not to have a baby that they conceived by choosing to have sex, but making abortion illegal wouldn't be forcing them to take those extreme measures. They would still have the choice in how to act for good or bad, legally or illegally.
An uplanned pregnancy might be embarrasing or an inconvience, but I don't think that should trump a baby's right to life. Regardless of when you or I think life my begin, we can both agree that once a baby is conceived, the fetus will become a baby unless it is aborted or miscarried. I think that potential alone should make a fetus sacred. Besides, a heartbeat can be detected at 6-7 weeks, which is right around the time that many people realize they are pregnant. That seems pretty alive to me.

kparc wrote:

"Prayers back in schools where it belongs.

Creationism taught, evolution removed!

10 Commandments Posted on and at all Government buildings.

Bible study MANDATORY!"

OK, but let's also not forget to stone people to death for committing adultery or for practicing homosexuality.

There are women who don't even know they are pregnant yet who are alcoholics and/or addicted to drugs. Babies being born suffering withdrawal symptoms from heroin. Fetal alcohol syndrome. And I am not just talking about women in big cities and the suburbs. In rural New England there is a heroin epidemic. In the West and the South there are crystal meth and oxycontin epidemics. All of these alcohol and drug problems create low-weight babies, babies born prematurely, babies born addicted to and withdrawing from drugs.

Then there are the fetuses that have not developed properly in the womb. I am reminded of the 60 Minutes' segment about the couple in Texas who were told to terminate their pregnancy because the fetus had severe brain damage. The hospital's medical review board approved the decision to terminate. The hospital CEO overruled the medical board, the parents, and the obstretrician because he was pro-life. The parents now must struggle every day to feed, bathe, clothe, and try to communicate with their fully grown son who cannot speak or move or do any other task for himself. The parents are getting old and can no longer physically care for their son. What is to become of these parents and their helpless adult child?

If Sarah Palin and the pro-life movement's policies come to pass, what will life be like in America? Let's think about it for a minute.

Many more pre-term births. Each one costing a million or more dollars as pediatric surgeons perform multiple operations to correct problems with under-formed lungs, hearts, etc. while society picks up the tab for surgeries and for the neo-natal intensive care unit for months.

Many more anti-social children growing up to become hardened criminals and, in some cases, serial killers because their mothers did not want them and treated them like sh*t their whole childhood.

Many more suicides as mothers despair over bringing yet another mouth to feed into the world as they struggle to put food on the table for the children they already have. Then society (us) is again taxed to support orphanages for the children left behind by mothers who commit suicide.

Many more children growing up susceptible to alcohol and drug abuse, depression, spousal abuse, rape, and incest (because they were exposed to alcohol and drugs in the womb and/or grew up in disfunctional families).

Much more crime of all kinds and our neighborhoods become more and more unsafe as the anti-social teens and young adults who were unwanted by their mothers take out their angst on us.

Many more Terri Schiavo cases where someone is brain-dead but we can't remove life support because the church says its not right.

Basically, we can all spend all of our time taking care of extremely retarded and brain dead people while spending whatever financial and human resources we have paying for healthcare for all of the prematurely born babies and providing alcohol and drug addiction treatments for everyone (newborns, pre-teens, teens, young adults, middle-aged, and seniors). We may even become so overwhemed we turn to alcohol and drugs ourselves in order to deal with the crush of all of these problems.

This is what we will have if the pro-life movement dictates our rights and freedoms.

All of these nightmares will occur when we outlaw contraception and emergency contraception (they are abortion in the eyes of the religious extemists), not to mention abortion itself. When women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term these are the kinds of things that will happen with much greater frequency than now because women who know their current cicrcumstances have their hands tied by BIG GOVERNMENT.

Or, we can have a society where women are allowed to reproduce when they want to have a child. Choice! Have no children, have 2 children, have 6 children, whatever you, your spouse, your extended family, and your community are willing to support and love. The government doesn't get to decide, you do.

Children who grow up wanted, treasured, nurtured, and loved! What a concept. Women who take their prenatal vitamins and give birth to mostly healthy babies. Babies who develop healthy bodies and minds in a nurturing, loving environment. Fewer alcohol and drug problems. Fewer juvenile delinquincy and crime! Less strain on society's resources and the environment. More resources available for education and social development. A better society all around.

So when a woman doesn't wnat to bring her child to term, and her doctor agrees, I am not going to argue with her. She knows better than I do what her health status is, what her current addictions are (if any), what her social and financial resources are, what her educational and employment situation is, what her living situation is, etc. In other words, how able she will be to care for the life she carries within her. And if the thought of bring that life to term in the womb is overwhelming to her, it is not my right to judge the decision she makes regarding her pregnancy.

The issue is wanted versus unwanted pregnancies. Under the Democratic platform, they are proposing better healthcare, better pr-natal care, more sex education for our teenagers, more access to affordable contraception, more education on parenting and child development, more resources for parents and children, more resources and less red tape for adoption, leading to more wanted pregnancies and FEWER ABORTIONS!

Think about the long-term consequences of the policies you advocate. What kind of society do you want to live in?

Any thoughts on the questions posited by this anonymous poster?

1) Rape statistics are woefully incomplete because so many rapes are unreported

2) If "immodest dress" and "hypersexualization of the media" were the causes of teenage pregnancies, then European, Canadian and Australian girls would be getting impregnated at the same rates as U.S. teenagers. Or maybe higher. Yet the opposite is true.

3) All this dancing about on conception is predictable. Let's hear the candidates COMPLETE beliefs on contraception. McCain has voted against it, time and time again. Palin is wishy-washy.

4) Tying into #3, where do the candidates stand in regards to pharmacists, and this new trend of refusing to fill prescriptions due to their (religious) convictions? I note that they start with refusing morning-after pills, move on to refusing to fill oral contraceptives in standard (monthly) pill form; what's next? Keeping condoms behind the counter? Insisting on notarized marriage certificates before dispensing them? Refusing to carry them at all?

September 18, 2008 6:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments

The morality of abortion... Considering that abortion is the decision to end a pregnancy, I would say that the morality question is fairly simple. When people decide to bring the question of when life begins into the picture, it becomes more difficult.

It seems to me that ProLife = ProPregnancy, not really a support of all life at all costs for all ages in all circumstances. If the morality of abortion were presented in this way, would people think a little more about their stances? Right now, consideration appears to take a back seat to reaction.

"I have total respect for those who believe that life begins at conception. I do not. My belief is that when a fetus is viable, when it can survive on its own, then it is a human being. My beliefs are based, not on religion, but on my own sense of morality. I do not want others imposing their religious beliefs on me."

One of the several things that jumped out at me was her statement that I copied on this email.... "when it can survive on its own, then it is a human being"...

this is just plain wrong. Liberalism is just awful,,our society wants human beings to be completely independent of anyone else. How sad that a woman would make this comment about a fetus that according to her is a "human being" once its born but even then it can't survive on its own! Would she then consider a 1,2,3 or even 4 year old a human being?

Does she not know the love that dwells in the circuminsession of the Trinity? That is... the mutual inexistence of the three distinct persons of the Blessed Trinity, the Father being whole and entire in the Son, likewise in the Holy Ghost, and so the Son in the Father and the Holy Ghost; and the Holy Ghost in the Father and in the Son. The expression is used also to denote the mutual inexistence of the two distinct natures in Christ.

Not even God himself is completely independent...who would have thought....

It seems to me that the REAL question (which, by the way cannot be answered) is NOT is the unborn fetus life (which, of course it is), but does the fetus have a soul? Both the egg and the sperm (prior to fertilization) are living. Why do people continue to use the word life, when the aquisition of a soul is the real question?

It is not only possible, Sally, it has become routine with McCain.

I believe life begins at conception, and that abortion is a very selfish act.

Sure, it must be frightening to be pregnant unexpectedly, but it's a burden a person can bear. Give the child up for adoption. That won't ruin your life.

Have the child. You started it. Finish it.

That said, my pro-life belief is far more consistent than Palin or McCain's. In fact, I refuse to accept them as pro-life when they only support the life of 33% of cases. The other 67% is war and the death penalty.

The established church opposes abortion, war, and the death penalty.

You must agree with this in order to seriously consider yourself pro-life.

Christ, by example, abolished the death penalty. The death penalty is Old Testament, clear as day. For those who follow the New Testament (which holds priority), you still have to follow the Ten Commandments (Jesus specified this), but you may not support the death penalty.

About war: Christ himself said "Blessed are the peace makers."

He also said, "Do not resist an evil person."

He also said, "Turn the other cheek."

How many times did he need to say it? He was for peace. It is above argument.

If you are pro-life, you are against abortion, against war, and against the death penalty.

This is firm, and ends this debate.

Thankyou for a very thoughtful piece.

I do not agree that life begins at conception, only the possibility of life begins a conception, and, at that point, it is not a question of morality, simply, choice, on whether, to allow the possiblity to become somthing more, a fetus, a baby. Life begins when a fetus can live or survive on it's own outside the mother's womb, in my opinion.

Regarding Sarah Palin's views on abortion. While I agree that discussions regarding her daughter's pregnancy are off limits, I do believe that her extreme views with respect to properly educating our youth about pregnancy prevention, safe sex, and STDs, are archaic and dangerous. One in four teenage girls now carry some type of STD.

This is a woman who believes in abstinence-only sex education and her 17-year old daughter is pregnant. Alaska has the highest rate of rape in the nation and Wasilla, under Palin's directive, charged women for rape kits until the state legislature intervened.

I was taught that you do not judge lest ye be judged; and those without sin should cast the first stone. The majority of the electorate will reject Palin because they, too, understand the relevancy of these warnings.

If Sarah Palin cared so much for her baby with DS, why did she get on a plane and fly back to Alaska after her water broke, then drive another couple of hours back to Wasilla to have him? Wasn't that putting her unborn child at risk? Not to mention that she bypassed TWO nationally-known pre-natal centers (in Dallas and in Anchorage) to have her kid in a regular hospital in Wasilla?

"My belief is that when a fetus is viable, when it can survive on its own, then it is a human being."

How many three-year-old children can "survive on their own?" They can be extremely inconvenient. Will Ms. Quinn let us know where they can be disposed of?

Sally,
Thanks for a very thoughtful and well reasoned piece. I am actually in what is probably a very small percentage of the US electorate, personally, Sarah Palin and I have the same view of abortion, the difference is that I know not everyone does, so I find myself pro status quo for the very reasons you cite in your article. Unlike Governor Palin, I am pro-life to its fullest extent, that means I oppose state sponsored murder (death penalty and offensive war) and I support the dignity of human life by being for a living wage, national health insurance, social programs that actually provide a living income to those who cannot for whatever reason support themselves. Unlike many of the bishops in my church who cannot see beyond abortion, I see the whole system of life and live the commandments through that day to day. That means that I generally vote on the liberal end of the spectrum because liberals use government to preserve the dignity of human life on the bigger scale and leave the personal choices to the invidual.

Let's turn this discussion on it's ear for a minute.
Here are a few questions for all of you who believe that abortions should be outlawed:
What would you say if your government mandated that no one could have more than two children?
What if your government required you to have an abortion if you became pregnant a third, fourth, fifth time?
Would you like government interfering in your personal life if that was the law of our land? Would you want your government telling you how many children were allowed to have or would you want to be the one to make that choice?
Think about those questions for a while.

Sally Quinn you should go back to the middle ages and the Inquisition period.

You are trying to stir up an issue that is the one position that makes people vote your way.

If abortion is so immoral, why do you believe that killing innocent lives in Iraq is not immoral?

Now, I do not, like Sen. Obama believe we condone abortion, but rather we are more concerned for the mother and the life of the child. We are concerned about issues of Rape and Incest.

Gov. Palin doesn't even have that on her radar. She is the most immoral person running for office and you keep writing about one issue without thinking about all the other issues surrounding, poverty, global climate change, education, healthcare, etc.

Then there is Sen. McCain who was an adulterous and his present wife's father who was a bigamist. Those issues are the basic tenants of the 10 commandments given to Moses.

Finally, to call you a neanderthal would be improper since life to you began 5,600+ years ago. And, I have asked my wife many times, what is the meaning of the word "conception". Is it when the sperm and egg combine or when it sticks to the wall of the womb?

You define that for me & might meet you part way. Since you had your choice of president in office for 8 years, he has done nothing to reduce the amount of abortions in this country.

I do not think that morality should be the prime, or only, consideration in deciding whether or not to have an abortion. Whose morality? Right now, we are under threat of an extremely conservative Republican regime taking over the rule of this country. They will try to impose their morality upon us.

The pro-choice position is definitely more "moral", if we are to consider morality. It leaves the pro-lifers alone if they dont want to choose abortion, yet allows those who do want to choose abortion the freedom to do it. Freedom of choice is definitely the more moral position in a pluralist society.

What other considerations should be taken into account when deciding about abortion? Practicality should be high on the list. Is it practical to deny abortion to women who got pregnant by accident, to women who did not want the child, to women who are victims of rape or incest, to women who are carrying a deformed fetus, and who will be forced to pay for that child's care for many years or her entire life? To women on welfare with no education about contraceptives, who by getting pregnantand carrying the child to term are just adding to the welfare population?

Think about it. Sincerely, Anita Whitney

Brambleton:
Lepid,

I'm speechless.

Do you even faintly realize that your entire post is a vain attempt to completely disassociate yourself from accepting any accountability or responsibility for your actions? That you could take such a self-centered, irresponsible position in regards to the life of human being is frightening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry you feel that way.
Having a second child would have meant not being able to support the toddler I already had. The needs of the child I already had trumped the needs of the potential child in my uterus. I have no regret for my decision, and I make no apology for it.

Thought provoking. In our younger days (we are in the 50s now) my wife and I were pro-choice and exercised that choice once. We have regretted that decision as we grew older. In societies like India, where Government promotes the one or two child norm aggressively, having a third child is practically a social sin in the upper middle class, so we ended up exercising the choice to abort --perfectly ok legally in India. The moral dimension of the issue did not trouble us then. Today, I am disturbed by it, though my wife and I do not discuss the subject. I do wish we had had more counselling then.
svm

How is it that we even contemplate the dilution of a woman's constitutional rights at an arbitrary, government dictated moment when "life begins"?

At that moment, a woman's risk of death increases statistically. Fact. Yet the government would require her, by law, to undergo that risk?

Until a fetus is born and viable, it is a physiological anomaly in a normally healthy woman and what to do about it should be solely the choice of the woman.

Let's work on limiting the number of unwanted pregnancies by education and availability of contraception. We are never going to eliminate poverty or war or injustice and we are not going to totally eliminate the moral and emotional struggle, the no winner dilemma, that is unwanted pregnancy.

"Sure, it is her right under the law, but frankly, it turned my stomach."

I would argue that this type of person has problems with responsibility in general.

"Those who believe that it is up to a woman to choose what will happen to her body also believe the decision is always difficult."

How about the body of the infant in the womb? Your statement above is perhaps one of the most selfish statements that a woman can make. Both the pregnant woman and the man who got her pregnant should make the baby's life more important then their own life. If a person is that selfish they are not fit to hold public office. This is the big problem with the pro death position. Take murder and call it a choice. Take a baby and call it a "lifeless piece of flesh." The liberal position is really a self-centered position where a person sacrifices a baby on the alter of pleasure or their own career. I am thankful to God for people like John McCain and Sarah Palin who stand for life and making others more important than self. Sarah Palin is an illustration that refutes pro death thinking. She kept her baby with Down syndrome because she saw the value of her baby's life. Her and her husband placed the baby's life above their own and that baby is receiving love from their whole family. She works hard and has a family and her family and the people of Alaska love her. She is a nightmare for pro death Liberals (Including most of the media who are pro death liberals) and that is why she is being attacked so stridently.

PALIN OF PRESIDENT!

President Palin will put an end to Roe vs Wade. All abortions will be illegal. ALL.

Anyone seeking, administering and/or obtaining an abortion will be tried for First Degree Murder under Federal Law.

God will return to this nation!

Prayers back in schools where it belongs.

Creationism taught, evolution removed!

10 Commandments Posted on and at all Government buildings.

Bible study MANDATORY!

Praise the Lord.

trace1:

My thoughts exactly. It seems that all prevention methods are also shamed upon. Especially in poor nations. I would rather give women birth-control than have to let her see her children starve to death. I believe so many only care about the unborn and once they are born(in poverty)they are worthless trash.

Back alley abortions, self induced abortions, dangerous infections, death and criminality will result from a McCain/Palin win. People have forgotten the terrible circumstnaces women endured when making desperate personal and private choices about their own bodies prior to R v. W.

Who are we to judge morality? My concern regarding the abortion issue is that many do not understand the purpose of Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade was not a decision based on morality, philosophy, religion, or ideology - it simply guarantees a woman's right to safe medical procedures - nothing more, nothing less.

We do not have the right to interfere with another's life path. I resent those who try to impose their beliefs on others, and think that retribution for our personal choices, if any, will come from something much more omnipotent than any of us.

I believe that those who deem themselves the moral barometers of our country will be judged much more harshly for their intolerance than those who've had to make tough, personal decisions and then live with those consequences of those decisions.

"But when a woman has sex willingly, to gain pleasure without paying attention to its consequence, then for her to plead for a moral justification for abortion on the account of her indiscretion (and her partner's) is akin to a gambler who lost a fortune in a casino asking the casino to refund the money."

While you have a point in principle, we cannot assume that unplanned pregnancies are always the product of irresponsible indulgence. That does a disservice not only to women but also to men, because it doesn't examine the latter's behavior in terms of responsibility.

We need to stop looking at the issue in terms of abortion - it's really symptom of the problem of unplanned pregnancies. Instead of simply assuming a cause of irresponsibility, we need to examine the major causes and determine what can be done.

Ahh, Stephen, and I say this as a beleiver, it is good to see that my assumptions re conservative 'pro-lifers' are proven by your takes. No wonder yr ilk cannot convert anyone. But the GOP can sure convert McSame...
As to the subject matter, Biden puts it well, and the Bishop cannot call down science on us in a matter of faith.
You all will never have the righteous definition on when life begins. And in the USA, the majority know you cannot legislate it, and examples of prostitution and execution are just for arguments sake.

Ahh, Stephen, and I say this as a beleiver, it is good to see that my assumptions re conservative 'pro-lifers' are proven by your takes. No wonder yr ilk cannot convert anyone. But the GOP can sure convert McSame...
As to the subject matter, Biden puts it well, and the Bishop can call down science on us in a matter of faith.

"Those who believe that it is up to a woman to choose what will happen to her body also believe the decision is always difficult. I don't know anyone who is literally "pro" abortion. Medical science has made it possible to keep very early fetuses alive, regardless of the quality of life. Everyone who is pro choice struggles with the idea of when life begins."

Oh, Sally. I can't even believe you wrote these words. Are you kidding? I personally know of three woman, who have each had over 3 abortions. One of them had so many that she actually was forced by her doctor to have the last child because he told her that if she had one more abortion, she may never be able to have a child.

I realize these woman are not the "norm", but honestly, when I spoke to one of them about her decision to have 3 abortions, she just looked at me and said , "It's really no big deal to me. I don't have much patience for birth control and this is a good option".

What do you say about that. THAT is an absolute outrage. I just listened to her in disbelief. Sure, it is her right under the law, but frankly, it turned my stomach. How absolutely flippant, but when you think about it, according to the law, what's the big deal. She was a married woman and had no qualms about it. She already had two kids and so, what's the big deal, right?

Wrong.

Ahh, Stephen, and I say this as a beleiver, it is good to see that my assumptions re conservative 'pro-lifers' are proven by your takes. No wonder yr ilk cannot convert anyone. But the GOP can sure convert McSame...
As to the subject matter, Biden puts it well, and the Bishop can call down science on us in a matter of faith.

Facetious argument alert! Making abortion illegal wouldn’t “force women in America to undergo illegal and dangerous operations” any more than making heroin illegal forces Americans to purchase illegal and potentially dangerous heroin from potentially dangerous and murderous drug dealers on dangerous street corners and using unsanitary and dangerous needles in a medically unsupervised injection procedure. Crimes are supposed to be illegal and dangerous. If we make them legal and safe they won’t be crimes. Why does this argument make my head hurt?

Here is a more honest argument:

Abortion kills babies. Execution kills criminals. Killing Humans is bad.

Legal abortion has many societal benefits. The mother is able to plan her life more productively by ridding herself of an unwanted care-taking obligation. Society benefits from her increased productivity. Society is freed from the burden of dealing with the socially destructive behavior that unwanted children are more likely to exhibit than wanted children.

Killing vicious criminals has many societal benefits. The rest of us feel better. It makes us safer. The criminal is 100% less likely to commit further depredations. Society is freed of the burden of caring for the vicious criminal living out his days in his snug cell with windows, heat, air conditioning, food, clothing, blankets, health care, etc. The vicious criminal’s surviving victims will sleep better at night.

Legal abortion and execution both kill Humans, and killing Humans is bad, but the societal benefits (which are good) are greater. Therefore both should remain legal.

Palin and McCain are probably hung up on the fact that babies are innocent and killing them is therefore more bad than killing vicious criminals. I think it's an honest position that should be treated with respect. I can respectfully disagree with them on this topic.

Dear Sally,

With respect to when human life begins, you said, "a fetus is viable when it can survive on its own, then it is a human being." This definition means that the answer changes as a function of technology. A premature baby born today stands a great chance of not only surviving, but leading a normal healthy life. the same was not true 100 years ago. Similarly, a premature baby born to a poor family in a third world country is not likely to live; but, that same baby born in America would live. How can the answer to the question, "When does life begin?" have an answer that changes as a function of the available medical technology?

The issue of Palin being proud of her daughter's "choice" to keep the baby has been raised again and again by pro-choice advocates to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Palin's position (being proud of her daughter's choice, but being willing to deny that choice to others). I think they're all missing something.

What Palin is probably referring to is her daughter's choice to keep the baby versus to give it up for adoption. Anti-abortion supporters believe in "choice." However, their choices are limited to keeping the baby and giving it up for adoption.

So it's not hypocritical or contradictory for Palin to be proud of her daughter's choice, yet advocate for strict anti-abortion laws that would limit abortion to cases where the mother's life is in danger.

I don't agree with her position, but I do think that it's ethically consistent.

Half the psycho babble on this page doesn't even make sense.

Every law the government passes "legislates morality." When the government says you can't be a prostitute, they are legislating morality. When the goverment says you can't steal someone else's identity, it's legislating morality. When it says you can't cheat on your taxes, it's legislating morality.

You pro-murder-babies crowd can quit beating that drum; it's worn out. Get an argument that makes sense.

You mock McCain as having an inconsistent point of view, yet you gloss over your own inconsistency:

"My belief is that when a fetus is viable, when it can survive on its own, then it is a human being."

So is a two monthold "viable?" It can't feed itself or take care of itself in anyway. Then you say:

"I would be happier if there were no need for abortion. But there are too many women, who, for a myriad number of reasons are not prepared to be mothers and should not be forced to be."

I'm sorry, I just thought you said your beliefs on abortion were determined by the viability of the baby? So if the baby is "viable" by your determination, but the mother is not prepared to be a mother, viability goes right out the window??

Your self deluding rationalizations don't even make sense....

The real issue to me is one of outcomes. If we know an unborn child has a high probability of being born into poverty or with a disability or into an abusive environment, and will, threfore, have many more obstacles and much more suffering ahead of him than most other children and many more risk factors for disease, incarceration, and pre-mature death and violence, then it seems that we should ask a fundamental moral question--Is there a moral or ethical imperative of a potential parent to eliminate as much suffering as possible for his or her offsrping. If there is such an imperative, then knowingly imposing life on another which has a high probability of suffering seems to me to be an immoral and unethical decision. You can count me as one who does take a "pro-abortion" stance in the interest of humanity. How much human suffering could be avoided if children were born to financially secure, well-connected, well-adjusted, well-educated parents instead of the current regime of an ovarian lottery. There would certainly be fewer children, but is that a bad thing? There would be a much higher likelihood of each one succeeding and flourishing. I was not able to meet that standard for myself and had no children of my own as a result, despite my wife and I both having advanced degrees from excellent schools and a stable marriage. We didn't feel that we were sufficiently qualified or could offer enought to a child to make it worth it. Life is hard enough without unnecessary obstacles like having insufficient parents from low backgrounds.

If you are against abortion, you are in favor of the government forcing a woman or girl to carry a fetus for 9 months and deliver the baby. That has enormous implications for health, education and job security. It simply is not moral to be against abortion unless you are also fighting for (1) free and unfettered health care for the pregnant woman/girl and baby; (2) the right for the girl or woman to continue her education; and (3) government-mandated paid family leave so the woman can have the baby, care for the baby, nurse the baby, without losing her job, which she needs to support the child.

If you only fight against abortion, but not for these other elements, you are not taking a moral stance, and you are not pro-life. You are simply pro-fetus.

If you say McCain's support for abortion in cases of rape/incest is murder, then what's the Obama/Biden position of abortion at anytime but also murder, even w/out the grey zone argument of when life begins.

Why is it that it is ok for government to interfere in a moral decision? If Roe is over turned then the government gets to do your thinking and make your moral decisions for you. Isn't religion all about what kinds of moral decisions YOU make? How can you exercise your morality when your government would be legislating it? How can you stand before God and honestly say you made the "correct" moral decision when really, you had no options to begin with? Real morality comes when you have an actual choice and options. Every moral choice is a decision and ultimately the jurisdiction for judgment of that decision lies with the God you worship, and frankly, I don't think God needs any help from hapless humans. In otherwords, true morality comes from within and it is not governmentally mandated.

Anything not defined by the Constitution should be left to the states!!!

Allowing the Supreme Court into this was wrong and is still wrong. Everyone knows this is a none issue for Presidential Campaigns, if Congress had some balls to pass a law and get it over with!!

If one believes in God, whether Christian, Muslim, or any other (yes, even non-theistic Buddhists consider abortion immoral), then children are the gift of God. Thus, the abortion of convenience is not morally justifiable if one claims to believe in God. This is not a matter of someone such as Ms. Quinn not wanting "others imposing their religious beliefs on me," as virtually all religions agree on this position. If Ms. Quinn profess to believe in any sort of God or non-personal Godhead, she would have to live under the imposition of God's universal rule.

Indeed, only atheists can claim to be impervious to such injunction, but then atheists are essentially amoral in the sense that there is no fixed, fundamental morality to their belief system; thus their "morality" can be adjusted to fit the convenient of the circumstance. This is the danger of belief systems, to quote Ms Quinn, ". . . based, not on religion, but on my own sense of morality," which substitutes personal morality (Quinnian system in this case) customized to one's circumstance and needs (which goes like, "I needs abortion therefore it is moral").

Nevertheless, the injunction against abortion cannot be absolute, just as the injunction against killing is not absolute. For example, most religions recognize killing resulting from an act of self-defense justifiable. Thus aborting an unborn child to save the mother's life is fully justifiable on the basis of self-defense.

Is the termination of pregnancy that was due to rape or incest justifiable? Some says no on the account that the unborn child was not responsible for its father's act of violence. But then does God approve of violence as a means to bring God's gift into the world? I think not; thus surely God will understand and forgive the woman under such circumstance if she were to abort the child.

But when a woman has sex willingly, to gain pleasure without paying attention to its consequence, then for her to plead for a moral justification for abortion on the account of her indiscretion (and her partner's) is akin to a gambler who lost a fortune in a casino asking the casino to refund the money. There is no moral justification for sexual indiscretion and its consequence, and the teachings of the world's major religions are clear on this.

Abortion is not a matter of "a woman to choose what will happen to her body," but a matter of whether a woman should have the absolute and arbitrary power to make a life or death decision not for her own life but for someone else's life that happens to reside in here body. The idea that somehow the unborn is not fully human life because it cannot survive outside the womb is as ridiculous as that an infant is not human life until it can survive without the parental care.

Pro-choice people must realize that they are essentially arguing for their right to kill human life under certain circumstances as morally justifiable and thus are required to present cogent arguments that can justify killing of human life, and sexual indiscretion is not one of them.

Ms Quinn, and others like her, often attempts to evoke in her readers the sense of moral outrage for the society having to force women to go through illegal abortions if Roe vs Wade were to be overturned with sentences such as, "It is they (women having abortion) who will suffer the life threatening abortions in the back rooms of quack doctors and the use of coat hangers to abort themselves. I was there."

But where is the same moral sentiment and outrage felt for the unborn that are mutilated and killed by similar coat hanger-like instruments with fancier medical names in the abortionist's office? Was Ms. Quinn there in those operating rooms when such operations were performed and tiny human body parts gushed out of women's wombs? Those women had made the decision to kill life without morally justifiable reason (other than their needs as morality); so if that decision had also killed them, is that really injustice?

As Sally Quinn says, induced terminations of unwanted pregancy has always been with us, and always will be. The legality of abortion is therefore indeed a moral issue - which is whether to allow legal and safe abortions or whether to have only illegal and dangerous abortions. Those who oppose legal abortions have the moral responsibility for condemning pregnant women to infections, bleeding and other complications following an illegal abortion, a morally unacceptable situation. The goal of moralists should rather be to reduce unexpected and unwanted pregancies to the point that legal abortions are no longer needed.
Dean Connors

Funny how she only mentions the issues she percieves as negative for McCain and Palin, but neglects to mention Obama's support for letting babies die that survive the abortion. Talk about intellectually dishonest.

"Those who believe that it is up to a woman to choose what will happen to her body also believe the decision is always difficult."

How about the body and the infant in the womb? This statement is perhaps one of the most selfish statements that a woman can make. Both the pregnant woman and the man who got her pregnant should make the baby's life more important then their own. If a person is that selfish they are not fit to hold public office. This is the big problem with the pro death position. Take murder and call it a choice. Take a baby and call it a "lifeless piece of flesh." The liberal position is really a self centered position where a person sacrifices a baby on the alter of pleasure or their own career. I am thankful to God for people like John McCain and Sarah Palin who stand for life and making others more important than self. Sarah Palin is an illustration that refutes pro death thinking. She kept her baby with Down Syndrome because she saw the value of her baby's life. Her and her husband placed the baby's life above their own and that baby is receiving love from their whole family. She works hard and has a family and her family and the people of Alaska love her. She is a nightmare for pro death Liberals (Including most of the media who are pro death liberals) and that is why she is being attacked so stridently.

For those who ask about a Biblical teaching on abortion, read Luke 1:26-45. Mary was only a few weeks pregnant, but the "infant" in the womb of Elizabeth leaped for joy, and Elizabeth recognized her Lord in the womb of Mary. Of course, that passage is of interest only to those who believe that the Gospel of Luke and the other books of the NT are reliable as history and as a guide to faith and morals.

Teresa wrote:
"Life begins at conception, and I say that as a scientist and aetheist. But that life is not a person right away, in the sense of a sentient being."

An excellent point. The embryo is indeed "living", but then so is a single egg or sperm. Even a single skin cell can be considered "living" from a biological perspective if it is actively engaged in metabolic processes. So, the question is not when does life begin, the real question is when does the embryo become human. Since the embryo develops gradually over time, there will never be a magic point in time when the embryo suddenly becomes human. This is from a scientific perspective. So then where do we draw the line, so to speak. Many argue from the standpoint of when the fetus develops human-like characteristics. Most would not consider a newly fertilized egg to have human characteristics, but most would agree that a 9-month old fetus is human in almost every sense. So, where do we draw the line? I also feel a good compromise is at the first trimester. The key word here is "compromise". Both extreme sides need to come down off their high moral horses and realize that there is no real good answer here. Terminating a potential future human life cannot be considered good by any means. But then again neither can forcing a woman to use her body as a human incubator against her will to produce and raise a child she cannot afford, care for or want be considered good either.

Whether you kill your baby with a coat hanger, crushing & vacuuming, shotgun or microwave, it is still murder.
And don't you mothers know that most of our children are not viable until at least 15/16 years old?

GW Bush could have created a SC that would have overturned Roe v Wade, but he didn't. They NEVER will. It gets them elected. See that's what happens when you use the mind god gave you. You think. You don't just believe. If you want abortion abolished, you might want to start thinking about getting a true fundamentalist through the primaries. All you conservatives do is vote for liars. They never deliver for you and never will. Meanwhile, your economic standing falls and your civil liberties are stripped away. Slowly, you are becoming slaves. And it's all because your ignorant to the fact that you are being played. Abortion gets them elected. Why would they actually abolish it?

There are substantial scientific reasons for us to believe that life begins at conception. Please read EMBRYO by Robert F. George and Christopher Tollefsen (2008).

It's not the business of the government to legislate morality. Period.

"Could someone please tell me the actual Biblical basis for being anti-abortion?"

THOU SHALT NOT KILL!!!!!

What is the greater evil that should be avoided?

Is it "allowing" poor, young mothers to abort their children with coat hangers through outlawing the very act that they perform?

Or is it rather, allowing 10 times more mothers to subtly abort their children in a clean way through those who serve the public (doctors)?

Thank you for this interesting piece on abortion, though I dispute the notion that McCain or Palin are 'committed Christians' as much as either or both may very well be committed at some point in their lives.

Permit me to take your consideration of viability one step further. Before we're born, a contract is made between the mother and potential children, with no exceptions. Should an abortion occur for whatever reason, that contract has not only been broken, but there are karmic considerations that occur and must be dealt with, but by the mother. The Spirit of the potential Human Being isn't harmed in any way, but proceeds to the next vessel for birth or rebirth, as the case may be.

In light of that truth, Pelosi's recent arguments the bishops of the illegitimate church of Rome have chosen to respond to are absolutely correct, and as usual, the bishops wrong. We can only provide so many children for their amusement, as it is.

Let's not forget the debates over abortion profferred by Augustine and Aquinas considered the Soul in animal and vegetative states in their earliest appearances, not 'full' Souls at all. Let's put these fools to bed along with the Catholic bishops who know better than to continue to lie to Humanity to fill the emptying pews around the world for shekels, or pretend the coffers can or should be filled through the torment of Human Beings. Enough.

Enough lies and enough false emotion from the likes of the hysterical Palin; one more self described 'christian' who believes a fetus should be saved so we can kill it later, when it's become a full fledged, erring adult.

There's nothing dumber than stupid..... or more dishonest.

"Is it really possible that he changed his position on such an important moral issue simply to get elected President?"

Yes. And because it's happening due to the same folks who brought us Bush '04, it has a scary chance of working.

I don't believe that Roe V Wade will ever be overturned. Republicans in Washington certainly don't want to overturn it. Why? Because every four years they need to haul that issue out of the closet, dust it off and use it to rally the vote of the non thinking right wing of their party.
I really like your article because it does cause the reader to think about their personal belief system. The important word being "think" which isn't something enough people do these days.

Sternberg writes
"1.4 million abortions in America last year, and every year. The Abortion Industry is a multi billion dollar enterprise with lobbyists, who are fighting to expand their market into viable fetuses"

Absolute crap.
1) There are no reliable national figures on abortion numbers as Bush stopped the feds from counting and most states do not track abortions.
2) If every abortion cost $1000 (they cost less) using your numbers it would not even be a 2 billion dollar industry

Lie much?

Yo - Jim - the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document and it has no influence on our laws. Now can you explain how we'd give legal protection from the moment of conception? I assert it would be impossible.

MotherLodeBeth writes
"There is a huge difference for me, between allowing an abortion because of the health of the mother, and the majority of abortions that are done because someone has failed to use birth control or hasn't used it correctly."

Than it will please you to know that carrying a child to term carries a higher risk of death to the mother than abortion.

"But what are the statistics for these cases? Department of Justice and other non biased reputable sources say these case make up less than 1% of all abortions."

Department of Justice doesn't count abortions silly.

Sarah Palin would force a twelve year old girl who was raped and impregnated by her father give birth to that baby. Never mind the psychogical scars this would cause for both mother and child.

Could someone please tell me the actual Biblical basis for being anti-abortion?

Are there specific verses outlawing abortion?

All I've ever seen are verses that talk about having to pay a fine if your actions kill a fetus. Interestingly, the fine goes to the father of the fetus, not the mother.

Am I just uninformed?

Since the mid-1960's I was a dedicated, even militant, 'pro-life' advocate. I felt that abortion, under any circumstance, was murder, detrimental to society and against the will of God.
In recent years, I have changed my mind. Although I never condemned the woman who chose abortion, I certainly held all sorts of hatred and animosity toward 'abortionists.' I then began to question my own morality. Was I morally right in condemning anyone for their beliefs on a subject so fraught with emotion? My final answer is 'no.' Were a daughter of mine or any close loved one to choose to have an abortion, I'd not condemn the facilitator (M.D.) nor the act itself. Anyone who would choose abortion does so with the basic right of any other human being to take care of their body and life as they see fit and proper. It's not for me to judge.

"Is it really possible that (McCain) changed his position on such an important moral issue simply to get elected President?"

Of course it is; he's done it on almost everything else, too.

On Roe vs Wade, the supreme court was absolutely correct in their setting of the bounds. However it is an american tragedy that the evangelicals use this to get votes and we give them non-profit tax advantages also. Please keep religion out of politics. Please stop the crap on how a baby should be adopted because it does not work.

Abortion and morality are an oxymoron. Sally Quinn? Just a moron. Once again, Ms. Quinn, who obviously views herself as the doyenne of tolerance and liberal thinking, especially at Washington cocktail parties, actually is a tiresome queen of intellectual fluffpiffle. If you believe abortion is immoral, and that life begins at conception, then abortion is wrong, wrong, wrong, no matter why it's done. What a sad commentary on our civilization that we so undervalue the most innocent of human life. It's irrelevant that abortions will continue no matter what the laws say. Ms. Quinn wraps herself in the mantle of being a crusader against those awful religious rightists. She's actually just a situationalist always ready with an excuse for bad behavior. Yawn. Ms. Quinn, there's no conundrum here, just a dumdum columnist.

1.4 million abortions in America last year, and every year. The Abortion Industry is a multi billion dollar enterprise with lobbyists, who are fighting to expand their market into viable fetuses. The abortion industry has mounted a great PR effort in an attempt to justify and legitimize partial birth aborotions. They do not feel that a 400% annual increase in fetal stem cell research funding is enough, they want to end restrictions on Federal funding too, and go for those bigger bucks.
Sally Quinn is their shill.

The 3 questions to ask on abortion are:
1. When does life begin? (The answer is obviously at conception. It's life!)
2. When would it be morally wrong to terminate that life?
3. At what point does the U.S. Constitution (and Declaration of Independence) acknowledge the inalienable right to life?

As to the death penalty, if life is to be held as sacred then there must be a commensurate response to the taking of that life, even death itself. If the punishment falls short of the crime, human life is cheapenend and (paradoxically) you will find it easier to accept the taking of a life in other situations (e.g. euthenasia at frail points of life). The death penalty is a difficult yet necessary action that respects life in its highest reagrd.

1) Rape statistics are woefully incomplete because so many rapes are unreported

2) If "immodest dress" and "hypersexualization of the media" were the causes of teenage pregnancies, then European, Canadian and Australian girls would be getting impregnated at the same rates as U.S. teenagers. Or maybe higher. Yet the opposite is true.

3) All this dancing about on conception is predictable. Let's hear the candidates COMPLETE beliefs on contraception. McCain has voted against it, time and time again. Palin is wishy-washy.

4) Tying into #3, where do the candidates stand in regards to pharmacists, and this new trend of refusing to fill prescriptions due to their (religious) convictions? I note that they start with refusing morning-after pills, move on to refusing to fill oral contraceptives in standard (monthly) pill form; what's next? Keeping condoms behind the counter? Insisting on notarized marriage certificates before dispensing them? Refusing to carry them at all?

Women I have known to have had abortions are, to my mind, no less ethical, no less humane, and no less likely to be good parents to their children than others.

Pro-lifers are not anti-abortion, they are just for it 20 or so years after the fact. After the baby is forced to be born into a world where there is little love and where there may be great resentment toward directed toward him, he grows up in a life of crime and kills someone at 20. Then the pro-lifers are ready to abort the life.

Everyone talks about Palin's (that's who this is about anyway) sticking to her word, that she is against abortion, period, and that is because of her religious belief. Bull-tinkle. If her beliefs on life were truly rooted in the Bible, she would be against killing anyone. The Bible doesn't say "thou shall not murder;" instead, it says "thou shall not KILL."

Sally,

Overturning Roe vs Wade would be a god send to the Dems. The passion on this issue is on the pro-life side.

Roe vs Wade is bad law anyway. The people should decide this state by state.

Sally, my 11 month old can't survive on his own.

When your now-husband Ben was married to another woman and you were sleeping with him, did it ever occur to you that he would abide by his Catholic faith and request that you NOT have an abortion had you become pregnant?

Why is there so much debate space given to the nuances of "when life begins" - when obviously there's not much importance given to life by those that spew about it.
Ask McCain how many innocent lives he destroyed when he dropped bombs on their heads - before he got "heroically" captured? Believe it or not, no matter when life begins, it MOST DEFINITIVELY ENDS when "collateral damage" occurs and a 10,000 lb bomb falls on your head.

"Pro-lifers" will do a great moral validity to their cause they get their priorities in order by
a) Enacting tough laws against pre-emptive warmongering
b) Withdraw from a war the moment any moral reasons for initiating aggression are invalidated
c) make volunteering in the peace corps mandatory to enrich the lives of the less fortunate
d) Outlaw all kinds of firearms. Pro-gun Pro-lifers are the living oxymorons.

For pro-lifers, not having these priorities in order and just focusing on the fetus, guarantees their perpetuation in the fringes. After all, forced righteousness without logic and judgment is the domain of the Taliban - not of the American.

This is the only decent thing I have ever seen Sally Quinn write. Maybe she does have a heart after all. Go Sally!

Sally, I truly appreciate your thoughts on this difficult subject. I agree that this needs to be a personal decision on the part of the woman. When abuse of women and girls becomes an anomaly rather than a common-place event, when adequate health care, reproductive education, and preventative measures are freely available, when day care and early childhood education is available, then abortion becomes a topic for discussion. Until then, it is just another stick (wrist-size or larger) with which to beat women.

There is a huge difference for me, between allowing an abortion because of the health of the mother, and the majority of abortions that are done because someone has failed to use birth control or hasn't used it correctly.

In the cases of rape and incest we have a crime that has been permitted and since a police report should be taken, I think allowing abortion in these case would be acceptable to most people. But what are the statistics for these cases? Department of Justice and other non biased reputable sources say these case make up less than 1% of all abortions. Its the majority of over 98% that I don't want.

Sex has become a recreational sport, done casually, and often on the spare of the moment or in the state of heated passion. Why should we destroy a small human however small, just so someone doesn't have to face the consequences of their choice to have sex, that have led to the conception of the fetus/child/human? I think abortion like easy sex has cheapened society.

Sex sells and the media be it print, movies, music videos, tv, doesn't want to forgo big dollars in exchange for some responsibility in down playing sex. And stop making celeberties who have babies out of wedlock look so cool, or the 'in thing' to do.

And as a country we don't seem to have the desire to have a national dialogue on sex, unless its HIV/AIDS from sex, unwanted pregnancies, STD's. which to me is akin to keeping the barn door open, rather than preventing the problems in the first place.

And look at how young men and women who aren't sexually active, who dress modestly and are responsible are shown via the media. The media only seems to pay attention to them when the media wants to mock them.

Life begins at conception, and I say that as a scientist and aetheist. But that life is not a person right away, in the sense of a sentient being. At the very beginning, the new life is just microscopic mass of undifferentiated cells. The religious often believe that God has imparted a soul upon the cell mass at conception, and to abort that soul is murder. Others do not believe the cell mass has a soul, so it's not murder. Should the former dictate their religious beliefs on the latter?

As many as half of all fetuses are spontaneously aborted by the first 3 months. It's so common that many women don't even dare to tell people they are pregnant until that 3 month mark. This is nature's way of giving up on a fetus that does not have a good chance. Perhaps we humans could use the same window and the same reasons. If a fetus does not stand a good chance at life due to circumstances, then perhaps it is not so immoral to abort that fetus within the first 3 months.

The real question is not when does life begin, but at what ages the fetus or infant acquires specific rights.
A trivial example is that the right to drink is not conferred until 21 (or perhaps it might become 18).
More important, Palin's position - no abortion except to save the life of the mother - clearly recognizes that the fetus's right to life is less absolute than the rights of the mother.
Morality should be a private matter, and society should not attempt to legislate morality any more than it should legislate prohibition of alcohol.

I am pro choice. I believe abortion is immoral.
Sometimes people make immoral choices: do I lay off workers or let the whole business go down?

The fact is, Sally, it's less an issue of whether or not a woman is 'ready,' and more an issue of whether she feels she can provide what a child needs. Show me a 'pro-lifer' who is willing to support unwanted children. Explain how we can be proud of America and pro-life and be okay with the fact that 1 in 5 American children live below the poverty line.

It isn't about abstinence. It isn't about when life begins. It isn't about bad people who should be condemned for not taking care of their children. It's about the children who are not loved, protected, sheltered, supported, nurtured, fed, given health care. Our children deserve better. If a woman learns she's pregnant and realizes she can't give a child what he or she needs, she may feel she shouldn't have that baby.

Ms. Quinn has some very salient points. Personally, I believe that only the POTENTIAL for life happens at conception. As Ms. Quinn said, until a fetus can survive outside the womb on its own, it is not yet a life...and you can't "murder" what is not yet viably living. One point that Ms. Quinn did not bring up is the fact that most "pro-life" folks are quick to jump on the bandwagon to "save a life", but when those babies are born, they disappear, and certainly don't campain for the quality of life these children should be receiving. Sure, Palin can afford to support her daughter's baby, but I seriously doubt that most women in this situation have those kind of resources. Perhaps, the "pro-life" folks should put their money where their morality is? Are the unborn, POTENTIAL lives more important than those ALREADY ALIVE? That certainly appears to be the case. With the current crash in the economy there are going to be a lot more poor folk around the US who can't afford another mouth to feed...THEY have rights, too. Will Palin and McCain pay for their food, clothing and education? Will they give the affection and attention that these babies's poor parents don't have to spare for them? Will they be caregivers, or pay for caregivers for those children born with severe birth defects? Will they let children born with terminal birth defects suffer a painful life and post birth death? These are morality issues, too.

I was in college when I became pregnant the first time I ever had sex. I decided that I could not handle becoming a mother at that time, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which I had survived being raised by a mother with untreated bipolar illness and an actively alcoholic father. I knew I needed to get an education so I could support myself. In 1975, just 2 years after Roe v. Wade, I was able to go to a clean and professionally run clinic for a first trimester abortion. Subsequent to that time I struggled with recurrent depression up to and including having 2 bouts with postpartum depression after the birth of my 2 sons in 1989 and 1990. It was only after a severe depression in 1997 that I was diagnosed with a bipolar II disorder, something that in hindsight I had suffered from since age 16. I was fortunate in my adult life to have a supportive husband and by 1991, after the birth of my second child (I was now age 36), to begin taking medication, which did not exist in 1975. As difficult a struggle that I had in coping with postpartum depression at age 34 and 36, with all the supports I had around me, I can't imagine what it would have been like for a child or me 15 years earlier. I went onto become a professional social worker and to work in the field of postpartum disorders, and in child welfare. I saw with my own eyes what unplanned pregnancies can do to women and their families. When people glamorize Sarah Palin they need to think through what she, McCain and the Republican party stand for. A constitutional ban on abortion should scare every parent of young girls who might someday be faced with an unplanned pregnancy or if they themselves should have a failure in contraception in midlife. This is no theoretical exercise here. And adoption? Certainly fraught with some very serious complexities and not a panacea.

You know, with all the attention that is being paid to abortion, I'd like to shift the focus.

What is McCain's stand on contraception? For it? Against? Anything that he'd want to see banned, or restricted? (As in what, if anything, would be under-the-counter; would you have to prove you were married or not before you'd be permitted to buy it? etc.). Ditto for Palin. Saying you're pro-contraception, but not specifying for WHOM is disingenuous.

What about Obama? Or Biden? Any declarative statements?

Yeah, I know, we'd all have an easier time nailing gelatin to the wall, but let's pretend that there are answers to be had, shall we?

I was born because my mother took steps to end her previous pregnancy. If she'd carried the other one to term, I wouldn't be here -- there wasn't time for both of us.

My mother has never had a moment of regret. I kind of consider it a happy ending, too.

But you know what? Even absent my mother's actions, that other fetus might never have developed enough to be born. A significant percentage of pregnancies end in miscarriage, so equating an embryo or fetus with a child is inaccurate.

My hats are off to Joe Biden who's response was a rarely heard but important point.

Different religions set a different time point for when the combination of an egg and a sperm becomes a human being. Biden recognizes that while his church has one definition, imposing it on people of other faiths who may define humaness as starting at quickening or even not until birth is inappropriate in a religiously diverse society.

I found it quite discouraging that the Bishop's response was to define their own religious views as scientific fact, rather than supporting his personal acceptance of their teachings.

Great piece. I like the balanced perspective.

Foxborough:

No one has mandated that anyone have an abortion. It's a legal procedure.

And for those who keep wringing their hands and wailing that "no" woman can abort after seeing their visage via 4D, please stop pretending to be speaking for everyone. It's simply not the case.

Men can prevent abortions over 98% of the time by consistently and correctly using contraception. If you don't want to lose your say over what happens to your sperm, keep 'em under control.

So what if it's an economic decision to abort? Why is that more offensive than the also much-maligned "welfare queens" of yester-year? It wasn't THAT long ago that many were decrying poor women having babies. What's wrong with deciding that if you can't take care of yourself, let alone an additional person, not to have them?

For those who are looking to adopt, let's not overlook the slightly older to much older kids in the foster care system who are eligible for adoption. If all you want are cute newborns, then you're deliberately overlooking those in need here and now. Shopping overseas for a newborn? How gauche.

I am a Catholic and I couldn't agree more with this article. Life does not stop at birth as most of the religious right seem to think. I also believe that having children means "mothering them" not having "staff" take care of them while running for VP.

Can we Puhleeez stop talking about this??? It is a bloody shirt which will never accomplish anything but to divide us. It is not going to happen...but thanks anyway, Karl Rove.

1. The nasty folks had 6 years controlling the government's main tentacles and did nothing to promote their so-called life agenda so why should now be any different?

2. We're killing people all over the world every day with our policies...lack of health care here at home and war overseas. We execute some people for crimes which may not include death of a victim. Babies, when they are born and their mothers are left on their own with no further support...where is the morality in that?

3. Only a small minority of our citizens actually want what McPain wants: no more abortions for anyone, anytime, anywhere, for any reason.

4. The nasty folks want to eliminate sex education in favor of 'abstinance education'...how exactly did that approach work out for Bristol Palin? And do we know if she got a social disease out of it? After all, she lives in the rape and abuse capital of the United States. (Now I know why her dimbulb mom favors guns...they are needed for shotgun weddings!)

5. Babies, when they are born and their mothers are left on their own with no further support...where is the morality in that?

answers, anyone?

The male contribution to a pregnancy can be so very fleeting - therefore its amazing that they keep interfering with the pro-choice law regarding abortion. The reproductive system is in the care of the women, the choices are hers. If the men want to make the choices then by all means, get pregnant and go ahead. Until that time stay out of an area which you can only guess at.
Science has proved that the lump of cells remain in that multiplying state for some time - no heartbeat, no brain - just jello. There is no way to compare this jello to a "human" nor is it anyone's business to say "no" to a pregnant woman regarding her needs, whether for rape, incest, her health or a gross error. She should be supported in every way possible with any assistance she may request and yes - with information to avoid further unwanted pregnancies in the future.
It is apalling to me that we women are able to make so many decisions regarding education, work, the household, family welfare etc but when it comes to our reproductive system, the government wants to be in charge?? It's totally demeaning and beats everything that I believe in as a woman(with a religion) and I won't vote for it and neither should you.

See the enclosed text and tell me would it help the matter through music propaganda?

According to John the righteous protesting soldier, life does begin with incitement but intelligence and personality???

CLINIC’S DOORS

Come on now, set down your voice
Do you care at all about a Wo - man's - choice?
It's her body no it ain't yours
Get your hands off now from the cli -nics' doors
You say you're for life you're going by the books,
Then you shoot the Doc (tor), hanging nurses on hooks
And if Christ was here he'd take our side,
He wasn't for bloodshed; he came for humane lights,
So come on brother come to your sense,
Revise your thoughts make some new advance
You’ve gotta understand we ain't no witch,
We’re all sick and tired of the stuff you've preached
For dancing version only – long solo
Dance rhythm, guitar solo consisting of a partial flamenco classic, Iranian marriage song (Moslems,) Jewish wedding song (Hava Naguila) played on the same beat, ending with another classic Spanish ending with the Middle Eastern altered scale
You say harassing a woman is a crime
Then you block her way and truly waste - her - time
And if her life relies on this act
You still keep on twisting your cree py facts,
So come on sister come to your sense,
Talk to this Pope Make him understand
He's got to say at last doctor's not a witch
And we've been sick and tired of the stuff been preached
So now come on men set down your voice
Don you give a damn to every human's choice

Guitar playing a version of “Is there anybody out there” (The Wall Pink Floyd), fade out.
(only in album/extended version) with different beat with shadowy words with such text:

But what about the crack babies? Mama do crack, papa do Meth, baby no liver, baby no brain! Aha, the gentleman, Mr. John Ashcroft, before slicing our civil rights with his pathetic Act, he belonged to this Holy family; I'm sure people like him could be great foster parent for them, get them Medicare and schools, and we gonna have crack babies with PHD or Marines? And GWBII, the president, who's not as harmless as R2D2, he's gonna cut their taxes, hey? But you know what, since they shot Lincoln I ain't gonna walk along that elephant once again, besides, we've got no time to waste with Mr. ex-Green Nader, let’s ride the donkey (Don-Kah)!

Kamran Mahjoob avalon19la@hotmail.com, written between '95 till now… (2007)
For more data, you may call (818)462-1749

"Actually, there are many organizations (faith-based) that provide assistance to women who choose to keep their babies. Some of these include Catholic organizations like Catholic Charities, Project Rachel, etc. The Catholic Church has been VERY supportive of women who choose to keep their babies."

Oh, with the exception of those pesky laundries in Ireland and unwed mother homes in the US.

There have always been charities ready to take babies from mothers and shame them for being pregnant as an unwed mother. Project Rachel is not a supportive place for mothers. It is a so-called healing ministry for women after abortion.

The Catholic Church is the last place I'd go for help if I had a "crisis pregnancy." Frankly, they are lousy for mothers in general.

Let's look at the REAL reason MOST women have abortions.

A report by Wm. Robert Johnston reviews available statistics regarding reasons given for obtaining abortions in the USA, including surveys by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and data from seven state health/statistics agencies that report relevant statistics. Percentages are compiled using statistics from reports from 1987 through 2005. Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows:

About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective "personal choice", including socio-economic reasons (about 25% for primarily economic reasons) or for birth control.

rape: 0.3 %
incest: 0.03 %
physical life of mother: 0.2 %
physical health of mother: 1.0 %
fetal health: 0.5 %

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html

I was raised (Catholic) to believe that abortion was wrong, EVEN when a mother's life was in danger. No exceptions, no way. This is Sarah Palin's position.

My personal views changed over time. Is abortion always murder? Is killing a living something the same as murder? Is an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy also murder? There have been documented cases of women giving birth to babies in such circumstances, however rare.

Do we consider all soldiers murderers when they kill in a battle? And, they are not killing a potential life, but an actual life.

In my view, a fertilized egg does not have the same life as a human woman. We do not hold funerals for miscarriages. We do not require fertililzed eggs to have passports. If the anti-abortion fanatics have their way, I do fear murder investigations after miscarriages.

Many women lose pregnancies without knowing that they are indeed pregnant. I simply no longer ascribe the same value to an embryo as to an actual live person, or even a late-in-pregnancy fetus.

I do know one thing: a politician's opinion about what my daughter should do if she ever becomes pregnant..matters little to me. And, as a lapsed Catholic, I don't care too much what the Bishops say anymore either, especially when they have shown such little regard for the children in the Church who were sexually abused, both boys and girls.

I think this debate needs to shift to supporting women in motherhood. Are our nation's policies anti-mothering? (I argue yes). As a mother, I fear that our attitude toward women and mothers in the workforce is no better than when I became a mother almost 20 years ago.

Sally, I come at abortion from the baby's well being. And NOT being wanted as an infant affects the rest of that child's life.

I know. Have been there, done that, and don't want another child to suffer because the mother has to carry to term.

My birth mother could not mother me. I cannot feel love for another. Neither am I capable of feeling love from anyone else. I can know it intellectually but not emotionally. I am unable to feel cherished, protected, secure.

Abortion is not, in my opinion, about the mother.

It is about the child and the suffering he/she will endure for a lifetime.

Please, folks. Think of what is best for the embryo. A fast death as an embryo is surely not as painful emotionally as being born to a woman who is not a mother.

Sure psychotherapy is necessary. So is self-analysis. One may finally love oneself enough to appear "normal, as it is said." I seriously doubt that an unwanted child is ever "normal, whatever that is."

If any of you are choosing between aborting and giving birth, I encourage you to find someone who wants that child. If you can't, I will take it. It will be loved.
homesower@hotmail.com

I think that Ms. Quinn brought up some excellent points. How can Mr. McCain say that he is against abortion and it is murder and then approve it in certain instances? This is partly why much of his conservative base was not excited about voting for him. However, he was better than the alternative that would allow aborted babies to lie in a utility room rather than be treated (Born-Alive-Infant-Protection Act that Senator Obama voted against in Illinois).
To address Ms. Quinn's definition of life--when a fetus is viable and can survive on its own it is a human being, this is equally has paradoxical as Mr. McCain's rape and incest exception. Would she really believe that the premie infant is only a fetus when it is born at 28 weeks and cannot survive without medical assistance? That the mother could choose to terminate it then because she can see him or her, whereas she could have an abortion if she could not? Now I know that she said "fetus", but let's look at the other end of the spectrum, is the 30 year old, who has been in an accident and will never survive "on his own" without medical intervention, less than a human being?
Abortion much like slavery is a violation against humanity. I understand that many women feel that it is their body their choice, but I am sure they are grateful their mothers chose to give them a chance to make that decision. Their unborn are destroyed, or as Ms. Quinn euphemistically puts, terminated. Anyone can watch the "Silent Scream" on youtube and see that these are truly little humans in utero. No woman can see a 4D ultrasound and argue against the sweet little face on the screen that resembles herself. Even Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, recognized that when he saw the "Silent Scream" and thankfully had the intellectual honesty to admit that he was 100% wrong on abortion. While I agree that it is unfortunate there are so many unwanted pregnancies and many unqualified mothers, there are many couples that ache for a chance to adopt these unwanted pregnancies because in fact they are wanted. (Wouldn't it be better to wish for more wanted pregnancies rather than less unwanted?)
It is interesting to me that pro-abortion advocates have used the same rhetoric for the last 20 years about wanting abortions to be reduced, but be safer and alas have made no drastic change to the system, only helping abortions to be more available. So while Ms. Quinn may not know any pro-abortion advocates that want more abortions, how are she and her friends helping to reduce the number?
Lastly, I think the death penalty issue Ms. Quinn raised against Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin is a cheapshot, a scare tactic. I would assume that McCain and Palin would no more want the executions of abortionists and women having abortions executed for making legal decisions than Abraham Lincoln would have had the slave owners executed for owning slaves legally. In both cases, the best decision would be for everyone to recognize the humanity of slaves and the unborn and abolish the treacherous acts of owning slaves and of killing small babies.

to Innocent Woman:

Let me understand this. You weren't ready to raise a child, but you were ready to make a child, and when necessity demanded it, to destroy that child?

We don't have to call it murder, but don't consider yourself "innocent".

Sally wrote: "Those who believe that it is up to a woman to choose what will happen to her body also believe the decision is always difficult."

But why is it always difficult? We have had decades of feminists saying its just a blob of tissue. I don't have any moral qualms when a doctor tells me he needs to remove a tumor. If they were consistent in their reasoning it wouldn't be difficult. Unless...

Unless the reason its difficult is because they have a conscience, and despite years of training to the contrary, their conscience screams "No!"

Its a tricky business, this overriding your conscience. It always leaves a trail of scars and pain. No wonder its so difficult.

Excellent post, Sally!

What anti-choice people don't understand is that it doesn't at all matter when one believes life begins. The government simply cannot put the rights of a fetus above the rights of its mother. It's a ridiculous argument to say that an organism not yet born is equivalent to a human being who has lived on this earth for decades!

Can you even imagine the ramifications of overturning Roe? Considering that Republicans stop caring about you as soon as you exit the womb, a crisis of unwanted, abused and neglected children would ensue. And which of the Republicans will volunteer to have their taxes raised to pay for welfare and other social services to help the burdened families?

Whether you believe abortion is murder or not, you should be able to understand the grave implications to society of overturning Roe.

I suppose the WaPo can hire anyone they want to do a column "On Faith". Perhaps, in a way, its best to hire someone limited, like a Sally Q., so they can present a more "objective" point of view.

But Sally, please, don't give us anymore lectures on morality - you just don't seem to understand the fundamentals.

I agree that Palin is more consistent in her views of abortion. I do take issue with the way you ask if McCain would allow a post-birth abortion if it was conceived by rape. It in itself is a valid question, but why not ask if of Barak or any other abortion supporter? What is so special about a 3 year-old that his still in the womb brother lacks? If we are to be consistent lets make it legal until their 18. Discipline will certainly improve.

As to whether a charge of murder is appropriate, consider this reasoning: We don't know when life begins, so lets err on the side of life and protect all fetuses. Likewise, since we can't say when life begins, lets make the criminal sanctions something less than murder. Lets make it sufficient to be a deterrent without condemning someone to life in prison for something that may not if fact be murder. The prevailing ethos here being "err on the side of life".

Ms Quinn: When can a fetus "survive on its own" as the basis for defining when it is a human being? No baby born even full term in a normal delivery is capable of "surviving" on its own. Under your theory a child of five years could be "terminated" at its mother's whim because it is not able to "survive" on its own. Can a child of ten survive on its own. You made this argument re McCain's position on exceptions to his pro life stance but it does not seem to register that you are equally lacking in a consistent position in favor of abortion as a moral choice. Reductio ad absurdum usually proves proves the stupidity of your position as well as McCain's pro life exceptions. The baby is the innocent party no matter how it was conceived.

I work at a low income family planning clinic. We received word that beginning in November, new regulations will go into effect that will "protect" medical professionals and pharmacists from dispensing certain birth control methods if it is personally against their religious and moral beliefs. Does this also mean these professionals will NOT educate women on all available options? The regulation also states that, for instance, a receptionist at our clinic can refuse to do certain aspects of their jobs if they had moral objections to certain forms of contraception. Is this where we are headed with a McCain-Palin presidency? What's next?

This is about has courageous as Biden's and Pelosi's stand. They are both cafeteria Catholics and have no business taking communion at Mass. Nancy claims the Church is unclear on this after centuries of discussion. (Man, I missed Russert that day) My Pope, my Cardinal, my Bishop, my Pastor is pretty clear best I can tell. Then we have Sally. Oh it's so bad. Especially up until the point in which an infant can make it in this tough world on it's own. Until then, it is not human. Oh... then what is it? Sally can't tell you. She just knows it when she sees it. Joe, Nancy, Sally if this if abortion is OK and should be allowed, then cut the crap and tell it like it is.

Here is another point of view. I don't want an abortion, but it is not up to me to decide for someone else. I don't think anyone gets one for fun. That said, when government controls your reproductive rights, they control it ... period. Sarah Palin is fortunate that she had the choice to have her youngest child. In societies where the government decides, the decision may have been made that the child was not perfect enough. There is a fine line drawn when others get to make the decision of when and how many children you can ......... or cannot have. I thought Republicans wanted less government... I think this is about more government than any of us really want if we really think about it.

Thank you for giving us a voice of reason on a serious and politically sensitive subject. As someone old enough to remember the deaths of three high school friends, the shame and banishment of another who kept her child, and the grandparents who adopted and raised their grandchild as their own, I never want anyone or any generation to have to go back to those horrific days. My disappointment in Sen. McCain continues to grow with his continual policy and personal turnabouts. More importantly, for me, I do not believe any man, other than one chosen by the female, has any say in the matter of abortion. As the wonderful Sen. Alan Simpson once said, "It is none of their (men) damn business.) It is ironic that most of the decisions regarding the right to choose have been made my men, who have absolutely nothing to do with a particular woman and/or her life and her life choices.

Wow, what a noble and gutsy stand by Sally. It's OK up until the point in which the fetus can make it on their own. Her "morality" says so. After that point, she is not OK with it. What about the premature babies that survive against all odd (and with the magic of medicine/Doctors). Are they over Sally's line of survivability or not? How would you know based on her morality? True, this is going to happen and the poor gets hit the hardest. But it would be nice to hear someone tell it like it is and not look for some bogus middle ground that helps them sleep at night.

To all of the Liberals who say "Abortion is a private matter and the government should step aside" forget the fact the government is the one that has mandated abortions must be made legal and paid for by tax payers dollars. Which is it, Liberals: Government step aside and refuse to pay for abortions (my choice) or get involved and take the side of the "Pro Death" faction (which is what they have done). Liberals love to have it both ways.
Tangential to this issue is the fact that the Susan G. Komen group, which is ostensibly in business to support women's breast cancer research, gave a large chunk of money to Planned Parenthood earlier this summer/late spring to help fund abortions. Once again the duplicity of the left knows no bounds.

To all of the Liberals who say "Abortion is a private matter and the government should step aside" forget the fact the government is the one that has mandated abortions must be made legal and paid for by tax payers dollars. Which is it, Liberals: Government step aside and refuse to pay for abortions (my choice) or get involved and take the side of the "Pro Death" faction (which is what they have done). Liberals love to have it both ways.
Tangential to this issue is the fact that the Susan G. Komen group, which is ostensibly in business to support women's breast cancer research, gave a large chunk of money to Planned Parenthood earlier this summer/late spring to help fund abortions. Once again the duplicity of the left knows no bounds.

Thank you. This is one of the most balanced and insightful treatments of this issue that I have encountered in some time. As an atheist, I am no less troubled by the moral dimensions of abortion than are people of faith. I also share your positions that a fetus becomes a human being when it can survive on its own and that religious beliefs and state legislations should not be imposed on women's bodies. However, from a moral standpoint, I often find myself stricken with somewhat ironic sympathies for the anti-abortion movements and this is born of my sense that I would not want to live in a country (or world) where the practice of abortion was not contested. Where I draw the line on this of course, is where the contest manifests itself as vitriolic (to say nothing of violent) attacks on women facing or making the decision to terminate their pregnancies. As you say, it is unlikely that anyone takes these decisions lightly. Protest, moral discourse, and heated debate on this issue can help foster a greater cultural environment within which women and their partners can make informed decisions and weigh the moral implications of these decisions without being the victims of caustic invective, violence, or laws unjustly inscribed on their bodies. Thank you again!

I had an abortion in 1964. My boyfriend and I were emotionally unequipped to have a baby, and were less prepared to be married. A regional doctor examined me and gave us directions as to how we were to follow through with an abortion. At no time, whatsoever, this was in 1964, did we ever think that we were committing murder; both of us were college educated, but we did not think it was murder; we did not think that what we were proposing to do was murder; the "thing" in me, was not a human, yet. So we drove to a buiding in the mountains, where he left me; I was met by some people wearing sunglasses, and blindfolded. I remember being driven some distance and then we arrived at some place. The people were gentle and kind to me, and reassuring that I would be alright. I was told to lay down on a table(?) and then some cloth or something was placed over my face.......sometime later I awoke....can you or anyone imagine the faith I had to have in these completely unknown people; I had to trust them. I do not for one minute think it was a pleasant task for them; but they were, for a price, trying to be helpful. I do not believe that they thought they were committing murder; and I still do not. I believe life begins when one is able to think and feel on their own. I will never believe that I or the the people committed murder. I will be ever grateful to them because I believe that they believed they were helping person - me. There are too many children brought into this world by people who are incapable of caring for them- I would like to think that those who do come into this world are brought into by caring, mature people who can give life to life.

it never ceases to surprise me how rabid some people are about the personal behavior of others that dont directly affect them (abortion, homosexuality, etc), and how quick some christians are to attack those who are different from them. WaPo's comment boards get a lot of crazy posts, but this article has generated some of the nuttiest.

abortion is a choice every woman who accidentally gets pregnant considers. some discard the option immediately. some consider it the only option. some spend days, weeks, months trying to come to a decision. that is how it should be - a CHOICE, one made by the INDIVIDUAL and not the church or the state.

this country was founded on the idea of liberty and personal freedom, that the only entity who could make the best decision was the person or people who were directly affected by the issue at hand. not the government, not your religious overlord - i mean, minister, priest, rabbi, immam, etc - YOU. even christians have to go with this one - what do you think god's 'gift' of free will is? prevention of choice invalidates the entire purpose (according to you) of our being alive - to knowingly and willingly choose 'good' and god's side. by removing the ability to choose, you are completely negating your god's greatest gift to humanity and cheapening the 'salvation' making the 'good' choices is supposed to bring.

im not taking a position on the issue of whether abortion is right or wrong or somewhere in the middle - there is no right answer to the question. animals commonly abort when resources are too scarce to support a pregnancy. the majority of human pregnancies (using the christian definition of a fertilized egg onward) are spontaneously aborted because of genetic abnormalities or failing to implant; many women don't even know they WERE pregnant. life is not a right. just because you are conceived doesnt mean you automatically get to live to the ripe ol' age of 80. life is a privilege akin to russian roulette. some of us make it, and some of us dont.

that being said, i don't know what i would do if the pregnancy test was positive; i DO know i never, EVER want to have to make that choice. my mom, a nurse-midwife, understood this, and made sure all her daughters knew about sex, contraception, and how to be safe. as a result, not one of her daughters has ever had an abortion.

you want to stop abortion? teach your daughters and sons how to prevent conception OTHER than abstinence (cuz your abstinence only sex education FAILS miserably). until you actually promote prevention of the problem, keep your morality out of my vagina and your hysterical condemnation to yourself.

Ms. Quinn could not survive a 24 hours on her own .

That McCain changed his position to get elected President is entirely consistent with everything else he's done, including his choice of Vice Presidential running mate. Come on! In this big country, he couldn't find someone better and more qualified than Sarah Palin? For goodness sakes, she's already doing everything possible to avoid an investigation into her abuse of power. Does this sound familiar to anyone? How's that for morality?

That McCain changed his position to get elected President is entirely consistent with everything else he's done, including his choice of Vice Presidential running mate. Come on! In this big country, he couldn't find someone better and more qualified than Sarah Palin? For goodness sakes, she's already doing everything possible to avoid an investigation into her abuse of power. Does this sound familiar to anyone? How's that for morality?

Ok, so "when it can survive on its own" it's wrong? Well, a day old baby in no way can "survive on its own". You have effectively, logically, opened the door to infanticide. Which clearly you--right now--oppose.

And the Pro-life side is irrational? Give me a break.

chris colley writes
"obama is a carbon copy of bill clinton, and electing obama would just bring back clintonian politics"

Gee, a strong economy and peace - sure wouldn't want to return to that! It's so much better to be stuck in a needless war, have a crippling deficit and a government that borders on Fascism.

BILL T writes
"No matter who becomes president, Roe v. Wade will fall of its own weight"

Been near 40 years and it's been upheld over and over again by Republican SCOTUS. Moreover Republicans have little to no interest in ending legal abortion. It's really rather a dead issue, no pun intended.

"There is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution"

You ought to read more about the Roe decision and the right to privacy before you say it isn't there. If you wanna toss away your rights, that's your business, but you have no reason to toss out the rights of others.
Does part of this boil down to the fact that Conservatives can't stand the idea that somewhere, somehow people are having fun?

Abortion has been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years. The only difference is that in 20th century, it became safe and legal.

In Europe, during the 17th century there were various herbal formulas that would help get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, but if the dosage wasn't exactly right, the mother would bleed to death.

Even more tragically, mothers (unwed and wed) who for whatever reason could not care for their newborns, often resorted to drowning their babies in the nearest available river.

While abortion should be a last resort, outlawing it could lead to tragic consequences, as well.

"My belief is that when a fetus is viable, when it can survive on its own, then it is a human being." - Sally Quinn
*********

your view invites some interesting questions as well--at least as many as senator mccains.

for starters: what do you mean when you say "survive on its own"?

babies cannot survive on their in the strictest since of the phrase. they need people to feed them, to protect them from the elements, etc. so why should it matter that that feeding comes from within the mother (through the embilical cord) during pregnancy, or from outside the mother, as is the case post-pregnancy.

both would seem equally required of the mother (or, post birth, mother and father).

or, do you take the barack obama position, that even babies that have been delivered from the womb alive can be left unattended until they die of neglect?

it seems perhaps you actually might subscribe to this common sense interpretation of "survive on their own". but then, if this is your view, babies could be killed until they are 4, 5, 6 years old?

no position is without problems, yours and obama-bidens just seems gutless, exponentially more callous than senator mccains, not to mention dismissive of personal responsibility, the core of any system of morality in a world that buys into the concept of free will.

Virginia to New York is still the same drive. Now the gasoline price would kill your budget. If you are near an Indian reservation, try there. They have cheap cigarettes too, to kill yourself with. The natives are restless, so be good to the young.

GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET $ TRILLION FRAUD AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Direct impact of McCain sponsored deregulations
Bankrupt and floundering
Failure of the investment bank
Government's takeover

GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET's business model has collapsed

Greed and fear routinely govern GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET financial markets and GLOBAL CRISIS.

GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET (giant investment houses, brokerage firms, hedge funds, "private equity" firms) irresponsibly TRADED the savings of average Americans (place LAS VEGAS STYLE BETS on extremely high risk stocks, bonds, and other securities).

DUBIOUS MORTGAGES were PACKAGED into BONDS and SOLD and TRADED. Investment houses had huge incentives to increase LEVERAGE (OBSCENELY HIGH BORROWING).

GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET compensation is heavily skewed toward annual bonuses, reflecting the profits traders and managers earned in the tune of lavish base salaries and obscenely high annual bonuses of $20,000,000.

GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET rely heavily on OBSCENELY HIGH LEVERAGE (OBSCENELY HIGH BORROWING). $3 Trillion (stocks, bonds, other securities) backed by only $80 billion in shareholders' equity while the $2.8 Trillion was LEVERAGE (BORROWED).

Leverage (huge borrowing) can create huge debts (huge principal and interest obligations)

GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET is a manic machine for gambling.
Traders and money managers are given huge incentives to do whatever would increase short-term profits.

For decades, GOP REPUBLICAN JOHN MCCAIN sponsored legislation that broadly deregulated WALL STREET banking and insurance industries.

GOP REPUBLICAN JOHN MCCAIN swept away Consumer Protection legislation and opened the way for a less restricted high risk financial marketplace.

While the GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET boom continued, government (White House, Congress, Supreme Court) looked the other way.

GOP REPUBLICAN Congress resisted tougher regulation and permitted WALL STREET to run out of control and obscenely high LEVERAGE (OBSCENELY HIGH BORROWED MONEY) RATIOS perpetrating intentional fraud against the American People.

GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET leaders intentionally deceived customers and lenders into taking hazardous risks for short-term rewards regardless of the long-term dangers to the American People.

Mortgages went bad. The powerful high leverage went into reverse. Losses eroded firms' capital bases and raised doubts about their survival.

Financial firms took major stupid and wasteful risks that severely damaged the American Economy and impeded economic recovery.

GOP REPUBLICAN STOCK MARKET $ TRILLION FRAUD has deepened consumers' pessimism, fear and reluctance to spend. There may be more failures of FINANCIAL FIRMS.

GOP REPUBLICAN WALL STREET financial crises resemble the GOP REPUBLICAN illegal miscalculated war.

"p.s., still waiting for that dialog on "race in this country" that Obama said he wanted to lead."
*******

ha! yeah me too. i think the only discussion on race obama is going to lead will be able his race, and how they republicans are sure to tell people not to vote for him becuase he's black.

obama is a carbon copy of bill clinton, and electing obama would just bring back clintonian politics. narcissism at its worst, and not without consequences for the country they claim to love and want to lead.

Lepid,

I'm speechless.

Do you even faintly realize that your entire post is a vain attempt to completely disassociate yourself from accepting any accountability or responsibility for your actions? That you could take such a self-centered, irresponsible position in regards to the life of human being is frightening.

god, i never heard of this sally quinn before last week, when she went haywire on the governor of alaska's because of her family life. this article is less hysterical, but just as obviously intellectually dishonest.

she has a zillion questions for mccain on his abortion stance, but none for biden or obama. as if their stance doesnt invite any questions.

i guess its only natural, though. people dont question those who they agree with. unfortunately, we are seeing the full consequences of that in the media's handling of the current presidential race: real objective debate being blocked by ideology and power plays.

if Sally Quinn is a DC "insider" then i count myself lucky that i am an outsider.

Hey, Sally. If murder is murder, why do we have 1st degree, 2nd degree, wrongful death, reckless endangerment, self-defense and justifiable homicide? Isn't murder, well, just murder?

Thought you might shed some light on this since you seem to have this abortion thing all wrapped up in your head. Thanks.

Roe vs. Wade has produced the death of over 25,000,000 babies since it was first passed under the guise of "A Woman's Right to Choose". With over 1,000,000 babies being killed every year this translates to 2,700 babies killed every day. The left continually states that average Americans are overwhelmingly "Pro-Choice." This is wishful thinking on their part. In truth the populace is "Pro-Life" except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. Overwhelmingly we, as a country, are NOT Pro-Choice when abortion is used as a form of birth control. The exception is, as stated, when the life of the mother is at stake. Unfortunately doctors working at Planned Parenthood will sign off and perform an abortion on any pregnancy regardless of the life of the mother. This turns the overwhelming number of abortions into a form of birth control. The Liberals beat their breast over the loss of one death in wartime and then completely ignore the ongoing atrocities performed every day by Planned Parenthood.

When I was a young girl, my mother told me stories of friends of hers who drove from Virginia to New York to have abortions. Several nearly died because of the bad quality and lack of follow-up these procedues offered. She told me this so that I would not take for granted the right to choose. As a mother in my thirties now, I have grown to fear that too many young women take choice for granted. If Roe is overturned, it will be the fault of a complacent women's movement that failed to head off the pro-life zealots. I would be horrified for my young daughters to become women in a pro-life era.

No matter who becomes president, Roe v. Wade will fall of its own weight, just like Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott v. Sanford. There is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, although I wish there were. Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, but the states have the right to regulate professions (including medicine) with a few exceptions such as airline pilots and railroad engineers. If abortion is merely a medical procedure, why can't the state regulate it? And if one class of people (pregnant women) have a right to an abortion, why don't we all have the right to medical care (which would be a consummation devoutly to be wished.) Finally, don't say that no one is for abortion. The corporations that make curettes or suction devicesand all people employed in abortion-related industries certainly depend upon the procedure for their daily bread.

So, according to Sally, abortion is not about morality; despite her protestations to the contrary. It is about consistency. If you believe that abortion is murder and yet suggest that there are some circumstances where it might be acceptable, you are being inconsistent, and immoral. Whatever happened to all those people who like to nuance things?

However, in her fawning way, she quotes the moral man - As Barack Obama has said, "There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro choice have not talked about." Sounds like he wants to dialog.

but then she seems to close off any of that - 'The decision, Biden has said,"is as close as we are going to be able to get as a society" to incorporating diverging religious views on the abortion issue.'

Well, I guess that's it. We can't do any better, so there's no need to get all nuanced about it.

p.s., still waiting for that dialog on "race in this country" that Obama said he wanted to lead.

NJEddie writes
"1: Overturning Roe v Wade does NOT make abortion illegal. Roe v Wade simply took the right to decide that issue away from the States, in direct conflict with the tenth Amendment"

Yer probably wrong, as Roe EXPANDED the civil rights of Americans, it didn't restrict the rights of Americans. As the SCOTUS has upheld Roe for near 40 years and most of them are Republicans, I think you might not know what you're talking about.

Wow writes
"Back alley abortions and self abortion? Come on. Both of those circumstances are contrived to shame people into being uncomfortable about this issue. They are Chimeras. There are no reliable stats on this"

It might shock you to know that events occur outside of your view. Just because you are ignorant about a subject doesn't mean things don't happen. If you're going to discuss something in public, it'd be a good idea to read a little bit about it first.

"So if I get your reasoning rich kids would be jet setting all around the world to get fancy abortions that the poor kids just couldn't afford?"

BINGO - you got it in one!
In South America, where abortion is illegal, women of means travel to Miami to get abortions.
Among poor women they have many more abortions there than in the USA because they lack birth control and sex education.

I worked at a place and if you got to know some of the people there, well you might think differently about the value of life. These people are reproducing which makes matters worse. This idea of life being sacred is flawed. We have G.I.'s killing people all over the place and rightly so. Are we supposed to say to terrorists, just keep having more kids so we have cannon fodder? You gotta keep killing people. For some people abortion is better than the alternative. There are plenty of things worse than death and I've meet some of them. McCain needs the softhead vote so that's how the system works. Personally I agree with the Supreme Court ruling. Any thinking person would, but we all know how many unthinking people are out there and they do vote. This lets a politician have it both ways. He can claim to be for something to get votes and then not do anything about it. God Save the Court. Some of the people are up for negotiation.

This is a superficial article that addresses none of the relevant philisophical arguments in favor of or against abortion. This piece is packed with a glib understanding of the issues involved and litany of straw man arguments to support the author's thoroughly unconvicing point that her "morality" is her own...oh, and by the way, get those darned laws off of my body.

The author's piece hinges on one conclusory statement that a fetus achieves personhood when he or she becomes "viable," in other words, "when it can survive on its own." Presumably, therefore, it's open season on newborns, toddlers, feeble infants, none of whom can survive without the assistance of the mother. You want to kill them? Go ahead. It's your right.

Beyond such horrific consequences, the author's standard of viability necessarily removes any moral dimension to abortion before viability. If it it becomes immoral to end human life when the fetus is "viable," it is not immoral to end it before that point. (If there is a moral dimension to having an abortion before viability, there consequently must be some personhood achieved before the viability.) So much for the oft-repeated moral dimension the author harps on. This is an illogical standard and it udermines the moral dimension that the author tries to present.

1: Overturning Roe v Wade does NOT make abortion illegal. Roe v Wade simply took the right to decide that issue away from the States, in direct conflict with the tenth Amendment. The "arguements" used by the expansionist jurists apply just as aptly to many other procedures, tatoos for example. Now suppose the Court ruled that teenagers can get tatoos or piercings at will, and that it is unconstitutional to require a parents' notification (much less permission).

2: To argue that a fetus is not a child simply because he/she hasn't been born is incrediably simple-minded. The only people who could possibly hold this position are those who've never seen a sonogram. There is no medical difference between a late-term fetus and a premie, other than environment.

3: If abortion can be justified simply because the potential mother isn't properly prepared for parenthood, then wouldn't that also justify infanticide?

4A: The morality of abortion is not dependant on democracy. It does not matter one whit whether most Americans are pro-life or pro-choice- the moral position exists independantly of its popularity. What's right is right, even if nobody believes it's right.
4B: The Roe v Wade decision also exists without regard to popularity. Constitutionality is not subject to a general vote; in effect, the only votes that matter are SOCUS'. But in fact, the truth exists even if SOCUS disagrees.

5: None of the above reflects my own feeling that abortion, while deplorable, has its place. I hope that Roe v Wade is overturned because it was wrongly (dishonestly) decided. It is also my hope that the States do not rush willy-nilly into regulating abortions. But parental notification should, at the very least, be required (not prohibited).

1: Overturning Roe v Wade does NOT make abortion illegal. Roe v Wade simply took the right to decide that issue away from the States, in direct conflict with the tenth Amendment. The "arguements" used by the expansionist jurists apply just as aptly to many other procedures, tatoos for example. Now suppose the Court ruled that teenagers can get tatoos or piercings at will, and that it is unconstitutional to require a parents' notification (much less permission).

2: To argue that a fetus is not a child simply because he/she hasn't been born is incrediably simple-minded. The only people who could possibly hold this position are those who've never seen a sonogram. There is no medical difference between a late-term fetus and a premie, other than environment.

3: If abortion can be justified simply because the potential mother isn't properly prepared for parenthood, then wouldn't that also justify infanticide?

4A: The morality of abortion is not dependant on democracy. It does not matter one whit whether most Americans are pro-life or pro-choice- the moral position exists independantly of its popularity. What's right is right, even if nobody believes it's right.
4B: The Roe v Wade decision also exists without regard to popularity. Constitutionality is not subject to a general vote; in effect, the only votes that matter are SOCUS'. But in fact, the truth exists even if SOCUS disagrees.

5: None of the above reflects my own feeling that abortion, while deplorable, has its place. I hope that Roe v Wade is overturned because it was wrongly (dishonestly) decided. It is also my hope that the States do not rush willy-nilly into regulating abortions. But parental notification should, at the very least, be required (not prohibited).

It seems to me that no one can realistically claim "life" begins AT conception. The sperm and egg which form an embryo are alive in the moments before conception (and they will soon die without conception and implantation). Life is present BEFORE conception.
Adherents of the "pro-life" position are more or less forced to admit that they are talking instead about a more nebulous notion of "individuality" or "human-life", as if the sperm and egg are not a human sperm and a human egg.
Does Archbishop Wuerl say that "every sperm is sacred"? If not he has to explain why the sperm and egg have far more moral worth one minute after conception than they did a minute before. He then must also explain why neither Jesus nor any church Father nor any christian thinker before the 19th century was capable of that new insight, but that this is still a part of Christian morality.
I believe a newborn child must be given the dignity and moral worth we grant to all adults. But I do not know where, before birth, one draws the line in these matters. The difference between me and Archbishop Wuerl, I think, is that I KNOW that I don't know. He does not.

Theologically, the issue has not been "when does life begin" but rather, "when is the fetus ensouled". From the earliest days of the Church, theologians have debated this question. For example, St. Augustine (354-430 CE) believed in "delayed ensoulment." He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed. His views passed into the church's canon law. Only abortion of a more fully developed "fetus animatus" (animated fetus) was punished as murder. When Martin Luther posted his theses at the Church In Wittenburg, he took exception to many elements of Church dogma but NOT to canon law on abortion. Nor did any other Protestant leader of the Reformation. At the time of the founding of the Republic, the right to abortion in the first trimester was a common law right opposed by no Church leader of that era. Abortion became an issue for Christians only in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century.

Po Sally!

She's for abortion, but she wishes she wasn't.

Po Sally!

"I would be happier if there were no need for abortion."

I would be happier if there were no need to kill anything. But would I? Imagine life without beef or broccoli. Imagine a religion that would prohibit my pruning my fruit trees, or whacking mosquitos. If Alien life forms were ridding the Earth of human life, would our love for life preclude our protecting ourselves?

No. Humans kill things, at least things that are only good dead, or when the good is achieved by making something dead. To not acknowledge this is to have one's head in some distasteful container. No religion is ever going to change this. No law can rationally prohibit it, totally.

But we can expect religion and laws to give us guidance about what to kill and when. And law trumps religion, at least in the US. At this time, those who would prohibit abortion must be recognized as scofflaws. Not just by their opponents, but by every law abiding citizen. Those who would violate the law must be held accountable for their actions. There is no moral excuse for not following the law in this case. Only tyrants believe otherwise.

Overlooked in this debate is that abortion is sometimes the moral choice, i.e. when a child's fate is torment or murder. Child abuse is rampant. Many people are incapable of parenting. They shouldn't have children. They do. Recurrently and often there follow heartrending accounts of tortured and murdered children. Inflicting a child with such a fate is immoral.

Grace:
Easy solution - have responsible sex. If you want to have a child have one if you want to prevent that use birth control.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Birth control somtimes fails. Even if you follow the instructions to the letter, it can happen.

Not all sex is consensual. A woman who isn't planning to have sex isn't going to be on birth control when she's raped.

Not all pregnancies are healthy ones. You would be amazed at what can go wrong with such a natural thing as having a baby. If a woman knows that a pregnancy carries a significant risk of injury or death, why should she not have the option of putting her own health first?

Just because a person is capable of making a baby doesn't mean they are capable of being a parent.

Not everyone has the means and resources to take care of a baby with severe disabilities. And finding adoptive homes for disabled babies is difficult. Those long waiting lists are for healthy white infants.

There are plenty of children in the foster care system now who need parents and will never be adopted because they are too old, too not-white, or have too many health issues. How about we find good parents for every kid already in the system before adding any more to it?

Patricia Kay:

Actually, there are many organizations (faith-based) that provide assistance to women who choose to keep their babies. Some of these include Catholic organizations like Catholic Charities, Project Rachel, etc. The Catholic Church has been VERY supportive of women who choose to keep their babies.

BTW, I respect an earnest dialog on this very sensitive subject and I abhor the personal attacks against Ms. Quinn.

A child is not of this world until it is born and taken it's first breath of life.

Fetuses are not children. An organism inside a woman is not a child until it is born.

Please speak to a rabbi about the story of Sarah during Exodus. Abortion is condoned in the old Hebrew Bible, but the bible has been revised so many times it's little more than babble now.

If you want fewer abortions, don't create a society based on greed that sends jobs overseas for profits rather build communities at home with good jobs. That's why corporations got their charters, to be good corporate citizens. Now, a corporate charter is a license to steal from stockholders who have little choice but put their money in the stock market.

Bottom line, most women having had abortions chose to do so because they did not think in our culture that they could properly support and raise their child. In this culture of corporations and CEO's first, and the people last, I'm surprised there are not more abortions.

Abortion went down in Clinton's time, because women felt there was economic hope and a chance for a good life should they bring a child into the world.

I oppose legislating personal behavior when it does not affect anyone outside of oneself.

Kert writes
"No one is forcing anyone to have a child. We all know where babies come from choose whether or not to engage in practices create pregnancies."

1) Isn't your side against sex education?
2) Teenagers do not have the same abilities as adults when it comes to seeing the consequences of their actions, period.
3) Are you advocating for more oral sex? I can get behind that!
4) Not every culture in America allows women to say "no" to their husbands (or male companions)

"For those who get pregnant forcibly or in an unwanted, there is the option of adoption. There is a huge waiting list for parents to adopt"

If that's true, why do thousands of kids languish in foster care?
Side question, as you seem more knowledgable than I - why does adoption cost 10s ofthousands of dollars? Seems to me it ought to be as close to free as possible.

J writes
"j:
I've been an independent voter for the last 35 years, but as time goes on I've voted more exclusively for Republicans. It's because I can no longer vote for a prochoice candidate. I'm a moderate in many ways, but I'm definite that abortion should be illegal, period."

So why support Republicans when they do nothing to stop abortion? Seems you are very short sighted. Republicans not only support illegal abortion by doing nothing when they have power, but their policies in other areas are all anti-life.
You are wasting your vote, and the Republicans are laughing at you.

Back alley abortions and self abortion? Come on. Both of those circumstances are contrived to shame people into being uncomfortable about this issue. They are Chimeras. There are no reliable stats on this. So if I get your reasoning rich kids would be jet setting all around the world to get fancy abortions that the poor kids just couldn't afford?

Squeaky,

I stand in awe of what you said and how you said it. I am in complete agreement. 'Rape' is one of the ugliest words in any language - 'violation' does not even come close. It is the crime that keeps on committing, well after the horrendous act. Pregnancy from a rape makes the violation permanent.

I am male, and Christian. Liberal. Let's keep up the good fight.

Grace writes "The last time I checked"

Somehow I don't think you've checked at all.

"there were plenty of programs for women who choose to keep their children. Don't forget they probably had the baby on the government so they have all follow-up visits for themselves and their children. They can get housing help, food help, job training - reduced day care - let's see what else should we offer them?"

Do you know what you are talking about. You are pretending that anyone can have a baby and - no worries - the government will care for you! You are 90% wrong. Maybe you missed the 1980s, 90s and the last 8 years under Bush. I know that BEFORE "welfare reform" government aid was little and hard to come by. Many people on welfare had to 'cheat' - get off the book jobs - to make ends meet. It's only worse now, and it also depends on what state you live in, no? "Help" you get in New York isn't the same as what you'd get in Alabama. And if the government help was so great, why do our poor citizens live in such bad circumstances?

"Pro-choice is totally a misnomer. Those who claim to be pro-choice are really pro-abortion (a.k.a pro-death) - the despicable Sally Quinn being one of them. Life does begin at conception, Sally, science has proved this and no matter how much you try to rationalize it, it doesn't stop it from being true."

"But the pro-abortion (yes, even if you aren't having one yourself, you are pro abortion, not pro choice which is just a way to make it sound better)"

Boy, I really resent others who don't even know me telling me how I really feel about something. Just because you're not morally or intellectually sophisticated enough to appreciate the distinction between believing something is *morally wrong* and believing that it should be made *illegal* doesn't mean everyone is. I think more than one person in this discussion has said that they do *not* believe in abortion, that they believe it is *morally wrong*, and yet they still believe it should not be *illegal*. It is possible to be pro-choice and *not* be "pro-abortion," to recognize that abortion is in most cases wrong, is something you would never choose for yourself and hope other women won't choose, but still recognize that other people do not feel the same, that another woman having an abortion doesn't affect you and that therefore it's not your business and not a choice the government has any business making.

Very thoughtful article. This is not an easy issue at all.

Even the Author's position of "viability" raises questions. I've a friend who had a premature birth with a five month old fetus. The child survived and is happy and healthy. So, by one definition, that means no third trimester abortions. And even second trimester abortions are in question.

If by "viable" one means can survive on it's own, that would include most toddlers that need parental care for feeding and basic sanitation. I doubt anyone is for killing unwanted toddlers.

So, definitions are problematic. Themselves a great point of public discourse.

Next, who's values and morals become law? In a democracy, majority wins. However, should an atheist, for example, be bound by a Christian perspective of life? On the other hand, society must have some norms. Our prisons are filled with those who don't value the life or property or whatever of others.

At the end of the day, I'd like to see both candidates present their positions and defend those positions. That will reveal quite a bit about the decision making process of the candidate. There will be no way to get 100% consensus on this issue. But understanding why someone believes as they do is almost as important as what they believe.

I agree with you Sally.
Poor, minority, young women will suffer the brunt of a repeal of Roe v. Wade.

It would be a shame to go back to a time where women used coat hangers to self abort. The life of the mother, should be taken into consideration when looking at this matter. There are people who are not prepared mentally, physically, spiritually, financially to have children, and they should not be forced to do so. By no means should women use abortion as a form of birth control, but if you make a mistake, a child should not have to suffer the consequences of your poor choice their whole life.

As christians we should be looking out for the best interest of all involved. And leaving children in dumpsters, or severely neglecting your child, should not be the option we place on God's children. Please do not think it is an overstatement to say that hundreds of children get mistreated by mothers who for one reason or another chose to keep their child, but does harm to them. 2 cases so far have come up where people microwave their children....

I saw the best bumper sticker the other day:
If you dont trust me to make the right choice, how can you trust me to raise a child?

No one is forcing anyone to have a child. We all know where babies come from choose whether or not to engage in practices create pregnancies.

For those who get pregnant forcibly or in an unwanted, there is the option of adoption. There is a huge waiting list for parents to adopt.

I believe Americans in general do about everything they can to prevent abortions. The last step is to illegalize the practice.

Sally Quinn brings to light the quagmire that is, bar none, human.

Mankind, who separated himself from the creator since Eden, has chosen the current path we are on, even to this day.

The issue is sin. Going against the commandments of God. People misunderstand the bible..for instance about the accounts of incest in it. Its like they think God accepts it. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The bible certainly brings forth guidlines to live by, and to live abundantly by. But it also chronicles mankind depending on themselves to decide right from wrong, good and evil. That is the core problem. If man never got it in his craw that he could rape or have incest, then the problem of abortion would not be here. A very small analogy,and only part of the puzzle, but nevertheless applies fully to human nature and how we have chose to let that human nature run amok. Absolutes are scoffed at. Dialogue is coarse and rank. Premarital sex is rampant. 'Music' (stated tongue in cheek) is debase and immoral. The creation certainly groans.

Man apart from God will continually grow in knowledge (just as scripture says), but with our ever increasing perverse and debauched ways, we are certainly headed for a correction much like the stock market is going through....only hitting much much closer to home, making the current headlnes pale in to insignificance.

I've been an independent voter for the last 35 years, but as time goes on I've voted more exclusively for Republicans. It's because I can no longer vote for a prochoice candidate. I'm a moderate in many ways, but I'm definite that abortion should be illegal, period. Society can assist pregnancies resulting from criminal actions. Other unplanned pregnancies should primarily be the responsibility of the parties involved, subject to public assistance as feasible. People need to experience consequences to learn abstinence is best in premarital relationships. Current US trends on marriage and abortion are failing miserably. Environment, war, economy all pale compared to the death of 1.5 mil Americans each year. If this floods America with parentless children, then we deal with it and ramp-up funding for daycare and orphanages.

Easy solution - have responsible sex. If you want to have a child have one if you want to prevent that use birth control.

Take responsibility for your actions. The government should not have to legislate personal responsibility. Think about the consequences before doing the act.

I know it sounds simple and it could just be that simple. Ladies educate yourselves.

The last time I checked there were plenty of programs for women who choose to keep their children. Don't forget they probably had the baby on the government so they have all follow-up visits for themselves and their children. They can get housing help, food help, job training - reduced day care - let's see what else should we offer them?

If one professesses a religion then they should follow the tenets of that religion...
If one joins a church then they should follow the rules of the church and abide by the church punishments and benefits....
If one worships a god then they are subject to the god's commandments...
If one lives in a theocracy then they can enforce religious rules in civil law...
One may elect to follow any of the above.
This one does not choose to follow a religion, join a church, worship a god, or live in a theocracy....or argue about it.

To paraphrase a popular NRA slogan: they can have my wire coat hanger when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

If someone makes it illegal for me to defend my own body from contamination and violation by someone else's unwanted DNA, I'll defend myself illegally and face whatever consequences the tribal mullahs dish out. If a man violates my body for a few seconds to deposit his DNA, that's considered illegal and we lock him up for a few years. In fact, if a rapist is attacking me and I kill him while in the process of defending myself, I'm unlikely to be charged with a crime. Yet the forced-birth contingent seems to believe that somehow a rapist's DNA is entitled to continue to violate my body for nine months, and my pocketbook for eighteen years. I think not. If his DNA is so sacred, important, and holy, let it continue its development outside my body because I want nothing to do with it. In fact, I'm taking back the egg cell.

I'm not particularly worried by the fact that the Christian majority opposes abortion and same-sex marriage, because any such restriction is bound to be temporary. As soon as Christians realize that what they're condemning is actually beneficial to them as individuals or as a society, all of a sudden it will become mainstream. That's what happened to interest-bearing savings accounts, stock market speculation, divorce and remarriage, and the reading of horoscopes. All these things are explicitly forbidden by the Bible, but Christians don't actually have to follow their own scriptural teachings when it's inconvenient to do so. Their scriptural teachings are simply a club that they use to bludgeon OTHER people into doing things that advance their interests or make them feel powerful.

In a restrictive society, people show their power by asserting their own freedom and defending that of others. In a free society, people show their power by restricting the freedom of others. As our society becomes more and more restrictive due in part to the efforts of sadistic religious zealots, eventually the pendulum will have to swing the other way simply because there will be no other way for human beings to assert power.

A more relevant question regarding the morality of abortion is - it moral to force people to have children they cannot support? Where is the morality in the state forcing someone to be responsible for another life (accpeting their definition) who does not want or cannot in good conscience accept that repsonsibility?

The anti-choice people have successfully framed the argument placing the value of the fetus while in the womb as more important that the value of the child (and mother) outside of the womb. That is backwards.

Of course, none of the anti-choice people are saying they will support children whose mother cannot do so. In fact, these same people are the ones who oppose social services, birth control and family planning.

A theoretical life is more important to them than an actual one. This belief system founded on insisting the world has to be as we want it to be (so much for Sarah Palin's not knowing God's will) is why this country is in the state it is in.

Start living in the real world and not your fantasy land based on mythology (and not real spirituality or faith)!

Why not address where Obama has voted on abortion? As a state Senator, he voted against the EXACT same law which passed the U. S. Senate 98-0 which protects a child born after a botched abortion. There is a reason he was assessed by a neutral source as the most liberal US Senator. Come on, at least try to fake being being objective.

Nathan Alterton, I think Sally's argument is silly.
Of course Roe isn't about "when life begins", and I'm betting you know that, so I won't waste your time talking about the constitionality of Roe.

You do seem to equate a 6 week old sack of cells with a 6 year old child. I find that comparison rather silly. Many people claim "life begins at conception" while we all know full well granting legal protection from the moment of conception is impossible. Moreover, I've seen the question posed "if you were in a position to save from certain destruction either a live woman or a try of 30,000 frozen embryos, which would you save?"
I have never seen anyone say 'the embryos of course!'
I highly doubt many people on this earth really think an embryo is as 'human' as a 1 month old baby.

I would love to see the post have articles about when other religions think life begins. Too often the view is through a christian prism, which as Biden notes, is note fair in a pleuralistic society

The decision to abort is not an easy one, but sometimes it is the best one for all involved, including the fetus.

As for quality of life and viability issues for the elderly, I have informed my family that should I contract or develop a terminal disease, I fully intend to take my own life when I reach the point where pain or inability to care for myself causes continued existence to cease to hold any joy or meaning for me, and before I become a burden on my loved ones.

The scientific evidence you are looking for is called DNA. Something we have only really begun to understand since legalizing abortion.

At the moment of conception your DNA is complete and will never change. It contains all the information needed to make you and all your unique characteristics. DNA is what makes us human, and any other living organism not. If this unique life is extinguished before fully developing, it will never develop again, and we will never know what we have lost. It will be lost forever, and in my opinion, that's a tragedy.

There's the science you wanted.

Those who are pro-choice, pro-abortion, etc., always try to make this a religious debate. But I very rarely hear evangelicals and Catholics make religious arguments against abortion. I am very pro-life, not primarily for religious reasons (although that argument can be made), but for scientific reasons.

At any stage during pregnancy from the moment of conception until the moment of delivery:
(1) Is the unborn alive? Yes, at every stage.
(2) Is the unborn part of the mother's body? No, it has unique DNA from both the mother and the father, clearly making it not part of the mother's body.
(3) Is the unborn life human? Yes, it's not anything else, there's nothing else it could be. And, as if this couldn’t be any clearer already, from the moment of conception the unborn contains 100% human genetic markers.

It's alive, not part of the mother's body (although dependent on it), and it's human. At this point I can hear the pro-choicers saying, "But it's not a person until it's independent," or some such statement. But do we really want to go down that road and say that there are a class of live humans who are not persons, and therefore have no right to life?

What would make someone human but not a person? Is it dependence, as the pro-choicers claim? I know families with severely handicapped children who are completely dependent on their families/caregivers for life. Because they are unable to care for themselves and would die without constant supervision do they fail to rise to the level of persons? If I found a small child wandering in the middle of a freezing blizzard late at night would I be justified in saying, "You know, small child, I could save your life right now by taking you into my car and getting you to the proper authorities, but because you are now completely dependent on me for your survival I have the right to choose to let you die. Because a human who is completely dependent on another for life doesn't rise to the level of a person."

This is ridiculous, of course, but it is no different from the justifications made by Sally Quinn or many of the pro-choicers in her camp. Anything about religion in this post? Not a hint. Abortion is not some vague theological disagreement.

When Eva St. Clair asks, "If life begins when the fetus is viable, then does life end when one's ability to care for oneself has diminished?" she raises a very interesting issue not unrelated to abortion--the end of life with dignity. While physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are perhaps off the subject at hand, they, like abortion are matters of great moral weight that are too important to left to pat answers. As humans we need to have the courage to face up to difficult moral questions and make tough moral decisions.

If abortion is a moral issue, then I implore you to help all the women who are pregnant and plan on keeping their baby, provide them with decent health care, housing and day care so that the parents can work and contribute to society. Help eliminate all the orphanages, if you truly feel that abortion is murder and that all children are god's children, then please spend more time helping orphans in the US, foster a child but please don't preach against being pro-choice and then do nothing at all to help pregnant women and children.

why aren't the bishops refusing communion to politicians and judges who are pro-death penalty? That too is against the church's teaching. Scalia even has gone as far as to say the pope is wrong.

Please, all of you who are "pro-life," stop with the hypocrisy. Why do you support candidates who start unjustified wars? Don't you realize that our bombs killed thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians? If you're pro-life, why do you support candidates who support the death penalty and guns? And why oh why do you support candidates who don't care one bit about providing basic healthcare needs?

The question is not when "life" begins...both sperm and ovum are alive before they meet and fertilize (if they do). The question is: when does human life begin. To those who adamantly insist that it is at conception, on what grounds do you make that stand? Is there anything in Scripture? When even St. Augustine, one of the greater minds in human history admitted that he could not say when the "soul" is joined to the body, how can anyone presume to know the answer? And a choice of words in an Encyclopedia is no proof of anything except perhaps the inclinations of the writer. Further, what science supports the notion of human life existing in the absence of even a rudimentary nervous system, let alone a functioning brain, which I suppose we can agree is necessary for sentience? (NB. Because a scientist believes something does not make it true...it must be supported by evidence and experiment, and subject to the rigorous testing of the entire scientific community, and even the soundest scientific fact is subject to revision in the light of new evidence. In other words, science is the true anti-dogma. So then, how would you measure or detect a "soul" entering a body?)

That the question is fraught and confused, and confusing, is the best reason I can think of for keeping the law and the state out of it. No one I know is "pro-abortion", but in certain times and circumstances it may be the best of bad alternatives...and no one but the parties directly involved should have the power of decision. I don't doubt that some of them will be deeply disturbed by choosing to abort, but then, moral choices are not easy when principles conflict, as in real life they so often do.

Finally, to those who are so sure that abortion is murder: To be morally consistent, the doctor who performs the procedure and the mother who opts for it must be judged as murderers. Shouldn't then the proper penalties apply? If you can't support this position, then your entire stand falls of its own incoherence.

BTW...I agree with the commenters who find the GOP "position" on this issue little more than political opportunism. We have had GOP Presidents and Congresses for a good many years now, and I don't remember anyone of them making a half-serious effort to do anything. It is much more useful as a tool to bring out the mobs at election time. What would they do without it?

If life begins when the fetus is viable, then does life end when one's ability to care for oneself has diminished? At what point is viability determined, at either end of this question? Furthermore, it would certainly be possible (in regard especially to the fetus although also to the sick and aging) that some would be stronger than others, and so the question would be unique for each individual. Who then is left to evaluate whether or not the individual is viable? The doctor? The parent? The children? The patient?

Furthermore, the criterion of viability no doubt would change depending on medical technology, and perhaps in not very many years, medicine will increase viability for those in either situation.

Those who hold viability as the criterion for when life begins would then have to change their opinion as to, in fact, when life begins. It follows logically that this is not a valid criterion for judging the beginning of life -- or its end.

Anti-abortionist state emphatically that human life begins at conception. Please tell me how you know this? Most of you are religious, with the Bible as your guide. Show me a passage.
If some scientist clones a human, when will you say its life began--was it when the cell was harvested, or after the manipulation of the nucleus. If a cell can be engineered to produce a whole human, then is an individual cell "human life"? Each cell carries the potential, so what do we do with all those potential lives in the tissue removed during surgery?
Most women will have at least one "failed pregnancy" in their lifetime. Do we try to collect the tissue, name it, and give it a "Christian" burial? Do the parents tell friends, "Our first baby died early in life."? Is there a part of the funeral industry devoted to these "deaths"?
THE only time you treat the fetus as a full human life is in the abstract, not in practice. Give me one example of someone treating a miscarried 10 week fetus as they would the death of a 10 week newborn.

Legal access to contraception was bestowed upon us, tangentially, by the Supreme Court ruling that married couples had the right to privacy.

Palin states she's against abortion, okay. She says she is for contraception, okay. BUT she states that sex education is to be abstinence-only.

So who is permitted to use contraception? When? Where does she stand on research involving contraception (the much longed-for "male pill", for example)? Would she support it being funded by federal monies, if she should find herself president?

What about McCain? What's his position on contraception, it's availability, when/how/if it is to be discussed within a school?

As for abortion itself, well, I don't see roving bands of abortionists kidnapping and terminating pregnancies. Plenty of people harassing pregnant women and clinic staff though.

It frankly puzzles me that the Christian right spends so much time fulminating about abortion while virtually ignoring Christ's message of social compassion. It is pretty difficult to believe that if Christ were alive today he would be a conservative in the Reagan/Bush/McCain mold. But let's for a moment posit that life does begin at conception and that abortion is killing. Unless you a pacifist and against the death penalty you can't use that as a reason to ban abortion in all cases. The taking of another human life carries with it a very heavy moral burden indeed but from time immemorial it has been done with religious sanction--including the sanction of the Catholic church and other Christian faiths. Bringing an unwanted child into a life of abuse and poverty is, in my mind, a far greater evil than a pre-viability abortion. Blanket condemnation of abortion is simply moral laziness and cowardice.

I believe that life begins when life begins.

In fact, I don't like using the word "believe." I prefer "know." And if I don't know, then I try not to resort to simply "believing."

It is a bad thing ( and I won't try to refine my terms any more than that) that abortions are performed, and if even just one out of a thousand abortions stops a life that could have been, then it is a bad, bad thing.

And yet, I have trouble endorsing a law that tells a doctor and a patient what they need to do.

I do like Obama's approach: let us work on the middle ground on which both sides agree. Let us provide more support for young women in making their decisions. Let us provide options beyond abortion, such as adoption services. (Why are we importing babies from Honduras and China? is the crass way of asking the question.) Let us provide more options, see how that goes, and then figure out how to address the life/choice decision.

Tom Paine writes
"I agree with you, Marc - more can be done. But I take issue with your statement that "nothing has been done." The Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which was pushed by Republicans and fought tooth and nail by Democrats, lawyers groups, NARAL and other fringe abortion groups, was a good start and deserving of praise for ending that sick practice."

Clinton and the Democrats did support a "late term abortion ban", and the Republican blocked it because it had an exception for the health of the mother. It'd be inaccurate to say Democrats fought against it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the ban passed by the Republicans and Bush only ban one form of late term abortion? Doesn't that mean it didn't prevent one abortion, and late term abortion continues to this day?

My original point is that the Republicans have no interest what so ever in ending legal abortion, despite calling it "a holocaust". My evidence is that they have done next to nothing to end legal abortion. I believe they like the issue because it gets well meaning pro-life to give their time, money and votes to Republicans. Actually ending legal abortion would cost Republicans that support in the future, while turning the majority of Americans against them. Note that the Democratic party didn't waffle on other controversial issues. Civil Rights legislation passed in the 1960s even though the Democratic leadership knew it'd cost them a lot of elections for at least a generation.
Further evidence would be the lack of leadership by the Republicans (and even well healed pro-life leaders). In 2002 President Bush made many personal appeals to the country to drag us into invading Iraq. Republicans and White House folks were on television weekly beating the drums of war. Their leadership turned the country around to their position. If Republicans believe that each and every abortion is 'murder', where is the same kind of leadership? Heck, has any Republican President ever shown up for the annual march for life in DC? It's not like the WH is far from the Mall(they border eachother in fact).
I think it's a fact that the Republicans don't give a hoot about abortion, and neither does the American pro-life leadership.

"Certainly, you won't see any changes if Obama is elected."

Given that under our last Democratic President we saw the abortion rate go down every single year, I think you might well be wrong. Obama won't end abortion, but I'd bet $10 that he will lower the numbers of abortions.

Way down Sally, I doubt McCain and Palin are Christians at all as you wrongly state, given their slash-and-burn campaign tactics and their lies.

In Galatians 5:22-23 we read in the KJV:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

I don't see any of these traits in either McCain or Palin! Further, in Matthew 7:20 Jesus says: "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

If life begins at conception, as many of you have suggested, is drinking alcohol while pregnant contributing to the delinquency of a minor or child abuse? Same for smoking... If you engage in intercourse with your spouse, are you also committing incest? If because of morning sickness, a pregnant women chooses not to eat, is she guilty of child neglect (for not feeding her child)? If your tap water has unhealthy levels of arsenic in it, are you attempting to murder your child? What if you're drinking that same arsenic-laced tap water out of a plastic cup that has BPA, do you get two counts?

Gene Weingarten had this same discussion last week on the Gene Pool; his take was that if you're against abortion, you have to be against it in all cases. I think Sally, and a number of others argue, the right of a women to have an abortion ends when a child takes its first breath.

"There is no doubt that there will be less abortions if it is made illegal. Sure some women will choose illegal abortions but according to CDC, only 39 women died due to illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe. There are 1.3 million abortions every year, almost all of which would be saved if abortion were illegal."

1)That's 39 women that CDC *knew about*. Remember, we're talking about *illegal* abortions. Think it's possible that there were more deaths that CDC, or maybe anyone else, didn't know the cause of? And even if not, is it really acceptable that 39 women *died* to satisfy your sense of morality?

2)As far as your last comment is concerned, even if Roe v. Wade was reversed, that would only put the abortion decision back in the hands of the state legislatures. I promise you there are several if not many states where women would not allow their legislators to take away their right to choose even if the Supreme Court changed their minds and said they could. And even if abortion was outlawed in every single state, are you really naive enough to believe that a sizable percentage of those 1.3 million women would not find a way to do it anyhow? Doctors operating underground, trips over the border to Canada or Mexico...

You bring up some interesting points on the morality of McCain's and Palin's views on abortion, but you do not subject Obama's and Biden's views to the same scrutiny. Why is that? I would also like to point out that most women who have abortions actually are well-educated adults, not, as you state, teens and poor women. Yes, abortion is a very complicated and emotional issue, but, while willing to humanize the mother's decision, too few on the pro-choice side seem willing to humanize the baby in her womb. Furthermore, the pro-choice side seems to suffer the same slippery-slope paranoia that the NRA suffers: if partial-birth abortion is banned, then all abortions soon will be banned (like the NRA's crazy assertion that, if assault rifles are banned, then soon people won't be able to use guns to hunt or protect themselves.) It is hard to imagine anyone who really understands what it entails being able to justify partial-birth abortion. Again, contrary to what people like to believe, this ungodly procedure is hardly ever necessary to save the life of the mother.

I became pregnant in college in 1968, long before Roe V Wade..My boyfriend was somewhat abusive and there was no way I was going to marry him or have a baby..I went to the "other"
side of town on the advice of a friend..I paid a woman $75, she gave me a shot of antibiotics and proceeded to insert a cathether, she told me to go home and in about 12 hrs I would start cramping and basically mis-carry...The cramps and "labor" began and I bled for nearly two days, a friend of mine knew a Gynecologist who had been forced to leave his practice in New York because he helped young girls in trouble, I contacted him, and drove myself to his office, he put me in a room in stirrups and without pain meds "finished" the botched abortion...I recovered fully, finished school, married and had two children...I do not regret my decision and I would do the same thing again, even risking death....We cannot go back to a time when desperate woman will do anything to terminate a pregnancy...

The notion that religion, especially Christian religion has any basis for determining the morality of abortion is ridiculus!

After all, it is their God that murdered the first born of Egypt because they would not let his poeple leave to wander in the desert for a generation. It is their God who does not let even a sparrow to fall without his consent who therefore allows millions of babies to die before their first year of life, it is theior God that is envoked to support the murders of military adventgures, It is their God that drowned the world because he was upset; burned Sodom because nobody was righteous enough, sanctioned the murder of men, women, children, flocks, dogs, etc for the Israelites conquest of Palestine, routinely condoned the murder, torure, slavery, genocide, infancide, etc. for the "non-chosen" people. The notion that this God cares about whether a bunch of cells are destroyed that had some potential for life is bizarre!

Thank you, Sally! I agree with your position 100%. Whatever someone think about abortion personally, it's not their right to force their beliefs on everyone else. I'm not reading most of the comments because I'm sure it's long since gone the uncivilized way, but I wanted to let you know that I appreciate & applaud your entry!

I believe the anatomical consensus currently says that until about the seventh month of gestation a fetus simply does not have enough organized brain matter to support any kind of self awareness. That probably should be a benchmark for moral abortion.

Far more spontaneous terminations occur than those that are intentionally induced. Yahweh does abortions all the time! Makes you wonder about "intelligent design" as manifested in the human reproductive system.

It is truly ironic that the people who think humans have "souls", based upon Hebrew or similar mythology, don't examine that mythology more closely. The old testament is jam packed with stories where parents clearly possessed the power of life and death over their offspring and didn't hesitate to exercise it to please Yahweh or themselves. Should we call this "really-late-term-abortion"?

"Of course this is true of any law.... there will always be people who break a law. We have laws against murder... people still murder. We have laws against stealing... people still steal. This is not an argument for not passing these laws, but for better enforecement."

The difference is, making theft or murder illegal doesn't make the people who break those laws *more likely to die* simply because it is illegal. Better enforcement? Enforcement is not going to stop some 18-year-old girl who's pregnant and terrified from ramming a clothes hanger up inside herself because she doesn't think she has any other choice and can't go see a doctor to have it done safely, it's going to make it more likely.

Some observations:

1. 127 comments so far and tubal ligations and vasectomies are not mentioned. Maybe not approved by the RCC, but definitely preferred over the potential problems that the guilt of abortion brings about.

2. Also, no comments about the sex drive, selling sex and abortion. Two million hits on Google using the word "p--n" shows the situation instantly. It is obvious sex is here to stay. The development, sales and profit from ED drugs, are added proof of this but it does show that the sex drive can be controlled by pills. So where are the pills to eliminate the sex drive??

3. The abortion drug RU-486 can now be purchased on-line without prescription. Therefore, the choice to abort is now solely up to the carrier of said life.

DB, you said,

"Are you serious? All non-Christians are immoral evil people who "believe the same"? I think there are some very moral, compassionate Jews, Buddhists, pagans, and, yes, atheists out there who might disagree with you."

My reply: you are exactly right. I AM Christian, but I have many friends who are not, and I consider them as moral as anyone else. In fact, judging my the replies of the fundies here, too many conservative Christians have no concept of what morality is. Seems to me Jesus said something about 'love your neighbor' - not much of that from the fundies here. And, oh yeah, fundies, don't give me that hypocritical crap about 'love the sinner, hate the sin' - that is just a cloak for your hatred, as is evidenced in all your comments. Try reading and LIVING the Gospels for a change.

Anti-abortionists are not--I repeat NOT--pro-life. They are pro-birth. If they were so pro-life, they would do more to help those girls and women who do "choose" to have their babies. If they were so pro-life, there would be many more institutions and homes and support groups and help in many forms for all the babies born to women who are not equipped to be mothers. Until the anti-choice crowd does more as a whole (I'm sure there are individuals out there who are doing their part) to support the poor and otherwise struggling mothers and their babies, they are nothing but shrill hacks without a moral leg to stand on. As someone brilliantly observed, if you find yourself pregnant, stay that way, because as soon as you actually give birth, you're on your own.

"Anonymous:
Sally,

Non-Christians have "no morals" they only say that they have to get by in life as not to be judged harshly by the public. They lie, cheat, deceive, steal, back-bite, are perverted, gossip, revengeful, cruel, and are the most hateful people that exist.

They are as cold hearted as a human can be, can stand in your face and speak peace, love, and harmony, and all the while they are making war against you. So don’t speak about them as having morals because if there is such a thing as what the world believes is Satan, they are in league with him. They do not know anything about loving unconditionally, compassion, integrity, and sacrificing for what is true, honorable, and sincere. It is no wonder they all believe the same, they all are a like, including you, adulteress!! How do you feel about breaking up someone’s home? I wonder how you can sleep at night!"

Are you serious? All non-Christians are immoral evil people who "believe the same"? I think there are some very moral, compassionate Jews, Buddhists, pagans, and, yes, atheists out there who might disagree with you.

I think abortion is morally wrong, and I would never, ever have one, nor would I want my daughters to have one. But under no circumstances do I want a law that prohibits abortion. I'm not willing to force my beliefs on other people. Why are the Republicans trying to do it? I don't presume to know what's best for anyone other than myself and my family. It's so incredibly presumptuous. I'm one of those voters not affiliated with a party, and I'm voting for Obama because he will protect what I think is important.

It doesn't matter how you justify abortion and the right to privacy. We could discuss this issue forever and neither of us would budge an inch. But one day all will stand before the LORD and that includes the likes of Kennedy, Biden, Obama and Pelosi and explain why they were for murder. No one and I mean no one will be there to speak for them. A moment of sadness will occur and whether the LORD says you may enter or you may go to Hell the sentence will be a final one. God help you Sally and the rest of your peers. You will pontificate no more.

We not only need to consider whether our positions are moral, but also whether they are logical. The initial article seems to say people have different opinions on abortion because they have different beliefs about when life begins. I agree. So one woman has an abortion because she doesn't believe she is carrying another human life, while another carries the pregnancy to term, because she believes it is in fact a life she is carrying.

Now, is one of these ladies ~wrong~ about the nature of the contents of her womb, or is the question of whether it's a life or not actually determined by their respective beliefs?

I would say one of them is wrong. Just because we can't perfectly determine the answer to the question doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist. So then, to me the question becomes "At what point do you give "potential life" the benefit of the doubt?

The pro-choice position seems to define "life" arbitrarily, according to the belief (and, to be honest, more often the desire) of the prospective mother. Is she not then playing God? This is "ethics by wishful thinking." Can we really do this?

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

RIK EDMONDS: Your initial conditional ("If...") contains a rhetorical assumption that needs to be defended if it is to have any validity. I contend, based on reading the definitions of slavery, chattel, and thralldom, that a stricture preventing a woman from killing her children in utero does not make her a chattel or a "subcitizen."

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica (1991; articles on "Human Reproduction" [in the Macropedia section] and "Embryo" [in the Micropedia section]), an individual human life begins at fertilization; an individual at this embryonic stage, moreover, is properly known by the term "child." Therefore, if abortion advocates are to be consistent, they should be willing to admit this reality. Some, like Camille Paglia, do. One problem is that as one previous poster excellently noted, any argument for the legitimacy of child-killing can be used also to justify infanticide. I became obstinately opposed to the legality of induced abortion when I realized that its case is special pleading that attempts to ignore its own broader implications. Key to my belated understanding was giving credit to the the clear, dictionary definition of "child" as explicitly inclusive of the unborn.

The problem with the Pro-Life activists is that they also tend to be anti-contraception. If you are going to outlaw abortion, you must promote the use and distribution of effective contraception. It is time to get past the Just Say No sex ed and started recognizing that sex will happen and that pregnancies are preventable.

Marc Edward wrote:

"Actually the Republicans are not pro-life in the least. They have had opportunities beyond count to end legal abortion and do nothing. When you judge McCain look at his words AND his actions. For 'the unborn' McCain has not lifted a finger."

I agree with you, Marc - more can be done. But I take issue with your statement that "nothing has been done." The Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which was pushed by Republicans and fought tooth and nail by Democrats, lawyers groups, NARAL and other fringe abortion groups, was a good start and deserving of praise for ending that sick practice.

Certainly, you won't see any changes if Obama is elected.

Anonymous writes
'"Alito/Roberts - I really don't take their words seriously."

It's mutual. We really don't take yours seriously and never will.'

In the same way, I don't think you take "the plight of the unborn" seriously. To you "the unborn" are just something to beat Democrats over the head with. BTW, you need to work on your 'flames' - that was pretty lame.

Jason writes "What an incredibly stupid article. Biased and slanted and arrogant!"

Agree with you on that one. I think Sally was trying to show she can generate heat, if not light. Sally doesn't let her ignorance deter her from expressing an opinion.

"The issue is not about abortion or "choice". It is about sex, plain and simple."

Maybe you ought to read more about Roe and reproductive rights. It's entirely about the freedom to choose.

"Do what makes you feel good and damn the consequences. Afterall, you can just get an abortion anyway. Kill the (fill in the blank) growing within you. You can have what you want and get away with it."

Very illustrative language you use - if I may sum up you are saying "Babies are God's punishment for having sex and nobody should be allowed to escape that punishment"

What a shriveled, petty little god you worship!

Tom Paine writes "McCain was pro-life in 2000 and still is"

Actually the Republicans are not pro-life in the least. They have had opportunities beyond count to end legal abortion and do nothing. When you judge McCain look at his words AND his actions. For 'the unborn' McCain has not lifted a finger.

Sally - I'm just not sure about you and some of you bloggers - not sure about you either.

First of all - Abortion is murder. Plain and simple. I agree with all the comments that life begins at conception. Sally's comment was ridiculous. Sally - let's address when you might think life actually ends - Is it when our hearts stop beating or is it when we can no longer take care of ourselves? Then what? We just go get put down someplace?

I think woman who choose to kill their babies live with it the rest of their lives. I don't believe they ever get over it especially if at some later point in their lives they change their minds. Being a woman I don't think it's something I would ever forget and I would always wonder about that baby that I decided to kill. Do any of you ever wonder what some of those babies that have been aborted would have been? Do you ever think about the plan God had for their lives?

For any of us who claim to be Christians or Catholics or any other faith that is absolutely clear about their stand on Abortion - and we choose to support Pro-Choice we are committing sin. So Joe Biden and Nancy P (you who profess to be "ardent practicing Catholics") how can you say that and yet approve of a woman's right to choose and never give a thought to the life she is taking not to mention the damage she is doing to her own life. You are blowing smoke and you know it.

I think Biden commented on his stand on abortion and sugar coated it just to get votes too. It's not just Mc Cain who seems to be two faced on this issue. Anyone who claims to know Jesus and is pro - choice is two faced. God is very clear on the issue of murder.

I also don't understand how some of you can compare Abortion with war and the loss of life. Two totally different things. You know I crack up over the comments about war. I know this for sure if Bush had decided not to go to war and we had another attack on this country, you all would be saying he didn't do enough. We have to trust the people we elect to office and remember they are not perfect. We have to believe they do what they think is best at the time for the Country. When a woman decides to end her pregnancy (for whatever reason) she is doing what is best for herself and taking the life of someone who could have made a huge difference in our country.

You failed to mention Obama's stand on killing babies. He has voted 4 times to disallow medical assistance to babies who were intended to be aborted. If it is a woman's right to choose what happens with her body, then after the baby is born, this does not havn any thing to do with her body.

Now, why did you truncate your discussion?

Killing babies should be covered up if Obama is the advocate?

Once again, more nonsense from Sally Quinn - who seems to have a never-ending supply of Democrat BS talking points.

A few weeks ago, Sally said Sarah Palin is an unfit mother for having the temerity to run for VP. Insulting and ridiculous.

Now she makes the absurd claim that John McCain was a supporter of Roe v. Wade in 2000, but has now changed his position to win the presidency.

How dumb - even for Sally Quinn.

McCain was pro-life in 2000 and still is. He has clarified his position on the matter several times. Sally, stop drinking the Democrat cool aid for a minute and listen to him.

Also, Sally - if Roe is ever overturned by the Supreme Court, abortion won't be illegal - it just won't be considered a Constitutional right. People who have abortions won't be "criminals." The issue will simply revert to the state legislatures to decide the matter.

How radical is that? The People - rather than 9 appointed lawyers - will actually be able to debate a serious, life impacting issue!

If, as you and all the feminists argue, a majority of Americans are "pro-choice," why are you all so afraid to have a debate about abortion in the state legislatures across the country?

If upon initiation of pregnancy, an individual becomes a chattel of the government, of society, or of a religion , then they become sub-citizens, even subhuman in contrast to their male partner, who with equal culpability in the pregnancy, suffer no comparable loss of autonomy, and carry no comparable portion of the physical and psychological burden.
Since society cannot assume the physical responsibility of the pregnancy, its imposition on an unwilling female amounts to a prostitution of that individual for the purposes of others.
The moral affront to the mother is matched by that to the child and to society itself, arising from the physical and psychological detriments the child suffers in the absence of the affection, commitment, and example of a willing natural parent.
The physical difference between a Hitler and a Lincoln give no clue to the difference in their humanity. Humanity is more than genetics. It is the outcome of eons of incultration, conveyed with each generation, for better or worse. When standing as “human” is reduced to genetics, we sacrifice all we have learned as a species, and all that can be discerned as “human” in other people or in other organisms.
For me, “life begins” with the beginning of independence, when an individual’s life is no longer totally dependent on its mother. It is the innate right of an individual to to command their own body. and in the case of females, to determine whether and to what point they will cary a pregnancy. We cannot argue that we respect the integrity of the individual if we do not respect their autonomy in this decision.

"Alito/Roberts - I really don't take their words seriously."

It's mutual. We really don't take yours seriously and never will.

The people have spoken. Nobody agrees on much of anything, so we'll always need courts to sort out the messes we all can make of life. There's not a court in the land that can sort out the mess I have here and it keeps growing. That's life.

After a long time, a very balanced and careful article on abortion. I disagree that life startslater, it starts right at the time of conception though it may become viable later. No matter what the personal point of view is, I strongly believe that no law should be imposed and it should be left to the discretion of a person. It is more a question of morality. Many factors affect the decision and it is always one of the hardest ones to be made.

Att: Mr. GADSTiAN & Family @ 12:29Pm

That was Beautifull!

Apocalyptically speaking, , Ye is a Rich Man. And Thanks For Adopting a Russian-Kid! "i"m thinking of Doing that Meself. "i" too hath 3 kids (2 Grown & 1 still 13; all from different mothers; but Married each time) ,

As a Matter a fact, me XX-wife is going back to Moscow, Russia [a resident] soon & will help to hook-up a deal.

Remember: We should always thank & Praise OUR genuine Parents [wed or not, Paper or not] for their COOCHY-POOCHY Moments, wherever It Happened Or How It Happened? Hence "SEX is Not LOVE!"

So May Xtra Photons shine with ye all!

----

Interesting: Imagine if Ye Grew-Up in a House of 'Non-Straight Couples' , Do ye think that you would've Became Non-Straight Yourself?

iMPORTANT: It is a Fact; that 40% of All Adopted Kids by Non-Straights Couples (especially HOMO{SEXUAL MEN) that they too become Non-Straight! A Non Ending, Un-Natural Cycle! but the GLBT will always DENY that Truth (opposite of MYTH)!

Note: The GLBT Movement in America, have Lots Of Money & also make lots of money, for Doing nothing, but maintaining someones elses kids [wanted or not] with recieving Tax-Payers Breaks & Big Tax Payers CHECKS.

Example: In a Way, It Pays to Adopt kids or to Foster Them, because The STATE mostly will guarantee a Check in the Mail everytime. A Win Win Proposition! And Talking about Proposition.

Note: "i" was joking about how those good folks [Straights] whom are struggling financially should Adopt Kids & or Foster 2 or more of them so they can the Morgage, bills etc.. Ps: U.S. D.A. Food Stamps is very very benneficial to all!, so in a way, take advantage of that too!

---- WHEREFORE:

VOTE: YES to CAlifornias Proposition # 8! And Vote Yes to Floridas Proposition #2!

Hence: Blessed & HOL{i} is Sacred, Sanctified Marriage [on Paper, by knot or string or scisor] is only between a Real MAVORiTE (Mr.) & a Real SPORADE (Ms.)!

Note again: SEX is NOT LOVE! Soo,

Someones Sexual Preference & or Orientation is not equated with Race. The Army Has it Right {do not Advertise]! And Even though WE "EC{LATARiAN" JO{KTANian Nationalis 'respect' non-straights, THAT we despise them vile 'Openly' flouting [Us Straights] in Public, especially in Front of our Children [Straights].

It is for this Same Reason that PUBLiC Librays have or Seperate Adults content seperate from Childrens content, which is NOT to Expose Them To XXX Rated 'Content'!

Real Example: Once "i" took me Son to the Library, & a grown man [Found out he was Homosexual] left his Station & my son sat down & saw how a Man was giving another Man head! "I' was Flubunt about it, speaking mildly!!! My son goes, "Ooooooooogggg"! So How Do "i" erase that [Picture] from his Head????? Another

Real Example: Afew Months Back, My Son & "i" sat down in a TACO Bells. "i"m sitting looking at my sone, but my sons face is wrinkled and hwe blurts out "oooooooooooggggggg" again. So "i" turn around and "i" see a Dark Short Girl (dressed like a DY{KE) and a White Girl dressed Casualy & the Dark girl , in a Booth is on Top of Her Tongue Kissing in the heat of Day in a PUBLiC Place!! So How Do "i" erase that Picture from his Head?? Again "i" was Flabunt about it!

Note: "i've been on Public Trains & Saw This with both Mr & Mr & Ms & Ms {without me Son, but once with him]. So How many times do We get Flouted???? Is N.Y.C. the Biblical 'SODOM & GOMORAH"?? Should We Run Away or Not Look Back!???

--- VOTE: NO, NO, NO to Same-Sex-Selfish & Risk takers & Straights Flouting Garbage!

NO MORE Mr. NiCE [Straight] GUY!

Amazing () No Grace!

---
Paid for by the JO{KTAN-ian, not Pelegian, PARTY U.S.A. 2012+

Allow me to shamelessly ape the Comic Riffs guy's prose today:

Is there anything worse than Sally Quinn's columns?
Sadly, yes: The ones who still complain about Sally Quinn's columns.

What an incredibly stupid article. Biased and slanted and arrogant!

The issue is not about abortion or "choice". It is about sex, plain and simple. Do what makes you feel good and damn the consequences. Afterall, you can just get an abortion anyway. Kill the (fill in the blank) growing within you. You can have what you want and get away with it.

Disgusting. Evil!

Jason

Is it more important than whether our citizens have access to affordable, quality medical care? Is it more important than preserving our place as leaders of a global society?
Is it more important than ensuring the well-being of your family?>>

(insert sarcasm) Don't you know that these things are not important....economy is good, war is good, and medical insurance is for the priviledged.

The only 5 issues you need to vote on are from the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics which consists of abortion, homosexuality, cloning, stem cell research, and euthenasia.

:::eye rolling:::

You state that you believe that life begins when the fetus can survive on its own. You also acknowledge that medical science is evolving and that fetuses can now be kept alive much earlier than in times past. So you appear to keep a sliding scale of when to allow abortion. This seems to be the most morally inconsistant position of all.

Under your analysis, the time when life begins is dependant on the evolving capabilities of human science. Do you also include a child's inability to feed itself in your calculation? Is an infant "alive" if it depends upon a parent for nurishment? When then does life begin? When a child is 3? 5? Old enough to hold a job?

Christopher McGath writes
"So, viability is the criterion for being a human being that is worthy of legal protection? What does that mean? We now routinely save fetuses at 39 weeks--the end of the 2nd trimester"

As babies are born at 40 weeks, I'm guessing you meant a different number.

Anti-abortion supporter writes
"Pro-choice is totally a misnomer. Those who claim to be pro-choice are really pro-abortion"

You are wrong. Calling names is not an argument. Most people I know who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion. We happen to agree with a SCOTUS opinion, as does the current SCOTUS, which is 7/9 Republican.

"Besides, the argument for rape and incest abortions is totally a red-herring since they represent less than 1% of all abortions. 6% are because of the life of the baby and/or mother are in danger and 93% are because women(whether teens or adults) don't want to be "punished with a baby.""

I hear stats like this quoted, but where do they come from? Or are you parroting talking points?

"I'm sure that the opponents of slavery used that same line when trying to justify the immoral practice of buying and selling slaves."

Actually supporters of slavery used the bible to justify keeping slaves. Ironic, no?

Virtually everything one could possibly think of has been said on both sides of this issue has been said. This is the third election cycle where this issue has, for some, superseded all the other issues in deciding one's choice of a candidate. It has arguably altered the nation's presidential choice and changed the course of our nation's history if one believes the office to be of that level of importance. Ask yourself, is it that important?
Is it more important than determining whether our sons and daughters die on foreign soil?
Is it more important than whether our citizens have access to affordable, quality medical care? Is it more important than preserving our place as leaders of a global society?
Is it more important than ensuring the well-being of your family?

If it is a moral choice as Ms. Quinn suggests, then the triumph of our nation is its ability to accommodate everyone's viewpoint and provide for the freedom to exercise that moral choice. I know, I know, but...!

But nothing.

Vote on all the issues. It's too important not to.

Pro-choice is totally a misnomer. Those who claim to be pro-choice are really pro-abortion (a.k.a pro-death) - the despicable Sally Quinn being one of them. Life does begin at conception, Sally, science has proved this and no matter how much you try to rationalize it, it doesn't stop it from being true. Be honest and say what you mean - you support the murder of babies inside their mother's womb. Sarah Palin is much more consistent on this. Besides, the argument for rape and incest abortions is totally a red-herring since they represent less than 1% of all abortions. 6% are because of the life of the baby and/or mother are in danger and 93% are because women(whether teens or adults) don't want (as Obama put) to be "punished with a baby."

Listen, Miss "Palin should stay home" - you are a liar and a hypocrite and the only reason why you are a so-called feminist is because you want women to exert unjust reproductive control over their bodies at the expense of the innocent.

Oh, and for the record, capital punishment in no way stands on the same level as abortion - in terms of numbers and morality.

Lastly, in response to Biden's lame excuse that he doesn't want to exert his religious beliefs on others. I'm sure that the opponents of slavery used that same line when trying to justify the immoral practice of buying and selling slaves.

Back room abortions or condemning an unwanted child to poverty and potential child abuse are not the only options. There is also adoption. The demand in the U.S. for foreign adoptee children is overwhelming. In 1970, almost ten percent of live births involved adoption. Today, that figure is one percent. There are various reasons for this, but the most significant is legalized abortion and the fact that most children who were carried to term and given up for adoption at birth in the 1950s and 1960s are not carried to term today.

Abortion opponents should embrace adoption and make a sincere pledge that if their financial means allow it, they will adopt a child, regardless of whether they have biological children or not. They are being hypocritical if they aren't willing to take such a step, but expect teenage mothers, etc. to carry an unwanted child to term.

I am liberal on most social issues and understand the intense emotions that many women feel when threatened with restrictions on their reproductive freedom-- but you can never convince me that abortion is right.

I was adopted at birth in 1967. All I know about my biological mother is that she was an unwed teen who lived in a maternity home for young girls/women.

If it was 1973 or later, I probably would never have been born. My life, my existence, my own family and children-- none of it would be here.

I'm sure it was embarrassing and traumatic for that poor teenager back in '67 to go through what she did; but I wish I could thank her for giving my life a chance. I think I've done her proud!

And yes, although I have three biological kids, my wife and I adopted a child (6 years old) from an orphanage in Siberia in 2007.

I have never been comfortable with the idea we get to "Choose" when life begins. Obviously, we have to go with our convictions, but are they just supposed to be based on what makes me feel good. Her conviction that life begins when life is viable outside the womb scares me. What about cognitive development and pain. Science has shown these happen in the 3rd month, far before life is viable outside the womb. Besides, science has allowed us to keep babies alive back to 5 months currently. It used to be 7 months and could be 4 months in the future. Where is the standard. We need a better standard than this.

I believe that we should depend on our religious convictions and science to come to a conclusion. Religions have typically been on the side of life at conception. Since we get most of our morality from religion, it makes sense that we look to define life here as well.

As for science, we now know how early a fully functioning life is formed (again in the 3rd month). We also know that at conception a all human information is present in our DNA. That unique combination of characteristics will not change throughout a human life. If destroyed we will never see that combination again. Science has shown our DNA is what makes us human. Truly a life can be lost at conception.

I do not believe naturally occuring abortions are a good chase to allow surgical abortions. I have know many woman who have experienced them and they are often devistated, even within the first several weeks of pregancy. This is because they understand that life had begone in them and then was lost. I believe women who choose to have abortions often don't have these emotions up front because they refuse to comprehend what has happened in them. How a mother feels about a child does not make the child less human.

1. 96 comments so far and tubal ligations and vasectomies are not mentioned. Maybe not approved by the RCC, but definitely preferred over the potential problems that the guilt of abortion brings about.

2. Also, no comments about the sex drive, selling sex and abortion. Two million hits on Google using the word "p--n" shows the situation instantly. It is obvious sex is here to stay. The development, sales and profit from ED drugs, are added proof of this but it does show that the sex drive can be controlled by pills. So where are the pills to eliminate the sex drive??

3. The abortion drug RU-486 can now be purchased on-line without prescription. Therefore, the choice to abort is now solely up to the carrier of said life.

It really does not matter which side the candidates take in this debate because no American President is ever going to have the sole power to approve of or ban abortions. However, if you look at more specific polls, the majority of Americans do not think abortion is morally correct and a high percentage think that the late term abortions (where, with today's medicine, a fetus has a change of surviving outside the womb much earlier than in the past), should be banned altogether. But the pro-abortion (yes, even if you aren't having one yourself, you are pro abortion, not pro choice which is just a way to make it sound better) people get excited about even limiting this, to the point where they believe that a 14-15 year old girl should be able to have one without parental consent. Bringing greater control to the whole process, making sure that abortions are not thought of as another birth control method (which cannot be denied with the high number of abortions that take place in this country - they can't all be accidents!), and ensuring that medical assistance is given to a child who survives an abortion are not religious zealot ideas but ones held by most Americans.

Why not examine the topic of a woman's right to choose before conception. Everyone would probably agree.

Do Ms. Quinn and Ms. Clinton, to borrow a line from Ms. Clinton, promote "do-overs?"

How 'bout it, pro-lifers? How many years in prison would Terry get because she chose to terminate her pregnancy? Would she get less time because the fetus would not make it to term? Should she have continued the pregnancy and likely suffered a damaging miscarriage? >>

Not a problem. Even pro-life members of my own family (who saw me go through this difficult time) would call me a baby-killer. I pray that the same difficult decision would never come to them but I do wonder what they would decide. Before my abortion, I was very pro-life. I shifted after realizing that having the choice might have saved my life.

So, viability is the criterion for being a human being that is worthy of legal protection? What does that mean? We now routinely save fetuses at 39 weeks--the end of the 2nd trimester. 20 years ago we couldn't. Does that mean that fetuses at 39 weeks weren't human 20 years ago and now they are?

Thank you, Terry, for your story. I am sorry for your loss. Unfortunately, by the logic of many posters, you are no better than a murderer. Sorry to use you as example, but I want to bring it home to these folks.

How 'bout it, pro-lifers? How many years in prison would Terry get because she chose to terminate her pregnancy? Would she get less time because the fetus would not make it to term? Should she have continued the pregnancy and likely suffered a damaging miscarriage?

Greggy writes
"I find it laughable to hear the same people who are excited about the possibilty of single celled life on another planet then turn around and say that a fetus is not alive at the time of conception"

Apples and oranges. The abortion question has nothing to do with when life begins. Google "right to privacy" and see where that right comes from. If you wanna argue a subject, being educated about it is helpful. I find Sally's comments regarding when life begins to be rather idiotic, but she didn't get her job through merit but marriage.

Carol Frey, Raleigh, N.C. writes
"I would point out that McCain has said that, while he would like to see Roe overturned, he would nominate jurists like Sam Alito and John Roberts who decline to legislate from the bench. At their confirmation hearings, both men said they would err on the side of adhering to precedent"

Hey carol, I'm a Chapel Hill person myself - nice to see a fellow tarheal. re: Alito/Roberts - I really don't take their words seriously. Republican appointees have known for decades to conceal their feelings on Roe. Look at Thomas, who lied about his position, claiming to "never have thought about the Roe decision", yet once appointed he is among the most hardline opponents of Roe. Alito/Roberts are just more Scalia-style judges, who will base their rulings on their political party's position.

I am so tired of all the emotional hype about this subject. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine way back in 1988 followed natural miscarriage through the eighth week. The study followed hormonal levels indicative of pregnancy even before the mother knew it. Nature, repeat NATURE itself, aborted 31 percent of found pregnancies through natural miscarriage. So I guess if human life starts completely at the moment of conception, it cuts no ice with NATURE. Conclusion. If you must abort, try to do it as soon as possible. Only medical reasons should cause abortions after the first trimester. Now can we PLEASE put this discussion to rest? That means YOU, religious fanatics. Thank you for your attention in this matter.

This statement is untrue. My wife and I lost a set of twins when she started to lose ambiotic fluid at the end of the 5th Month of Pregnancy. We are very affluent and have excellent medical coverage. The doctors (five different individuals)told us specifically, that there was not any technology that could save either fetus. All would could do was wait and see while my stayed on bed rest in the hospital for about a week and a half.>>

I agree with you. I was pregnant at 20 weeks with a baby who had anencephaly (absence of brain). There was no medical chance the baby would make it to term or sustain life after he was born. There were risks to keeping it. Many of which are too lengthy to discuss here. I had to make a choice. My life was at risk even though death was not imminent. I chose to terminate. It was extremely difficult and was something I think about every day even 16 years and 4 kids later.

My personal belief is that I would never abort a child unless it was an extreme circumstance like I was in. That makes me (technically) pro-choice (right? abortion is abortion. period). I also believe that it is not government's job to be involved in my life. Funny how they don't want government involved in Wall Street or involved in providing jobs for Americans but they sure want to dictate what happens to your body?

So what is next? Making homosexuality illegal? Making divorce illegal? Where does it end?

I have a problem with the concept of a fetus not being a human being when defined as unable to survive on its own. Premature babies often require intensive care to survive until they can make it on their own. Are they human?

The very difficult issue before us is to define what is a human being, not just when life begins. We still struggle with defining when life ends, at least in terms of when it is reasonable to "pull the plug." These issues are so much more difficult to resolve than embracing a simple "either or" choice.

------
2-two things, on LiFE & DEATH: Before"i" begin, please Learn the EKLAHT-ARiAN Lingo. Thanks.
------

Fear-Not. Good Tidings. A little 'iNSiGHT & PATTERN RECOGNiTiON' of Natures-Laws will Due!

1:
On LiFE; Apocalyptically Speaking, as We EKCLAHT-ARiAN Nationalis [MEMETiC] are aware; THAT,

Nature, according to the Survival of the fittest story [not Biblical] , appears to Us HUE{MATE's via "Hol{i} Cosmic PHOTONS", or as [Motil developed SPERM] We appear To Nature, between absolute HOT & absolute COLD, aka "O.U.R. Reality-in-TiME", aka "TEMPERATURE", not clock time nor space time Thinking!

--------------------------------------------------

iNCAMERA (Secret): We EKLAHT-i-ON's, , aka HUE{MATE-kinds, not Human-unkinds, are cometh from past lives via Many Parents [Hosts]! And We will continue to have many parents [more Hosts].

Note: "i" mentioned this 'Ec{lat-i-On' Philosophy on WAPO several Times, but the Essays, of Many, was Deliberately & or Jealously Deleted, by Humans, not 'HUE{MATE's! So,

WE actually evolved From the Holy Cosmic "MAGAMPERCOLATiON-Effect", already 'Pre-Baptised & Blessed', and crawled-out out of the Miraculous OCEANiC-MEGAPLUME-WOMB" through Billions of Years [On This Planet, of Many , pasts, Today, & Futurebound again].

Note: The U.S. '$cientologist' & the U.S. 'Nation Of Islam' are very Jealous of This TRUTH (opposite of MYTH)!

Remember: Ye HEURiSTiC/a/o (Immortal SOUL was Never Created, nor Was "IT" destroyed! YES! EKCLAHTi has a fixed GENE-POOL for This Planet, or One Planet at a TiME (via Hol{i} TEmperature as time, not clock)! Interestingly, Once a MALE (XY) always a HE (MAVORiTE) , Feamle (XX) always a SHE (SPORADE) too! Meaning that the Gender of Ye Holy Cosmic HEURiSTiC/a/o birth (a Miracle, zero Biblio Sin/Curse, where 'o' = Female & 'a' = Male), never Changes; It's Eternal from One Planet, like Earth & better & Worse, Holy Hoppings to another!

Explanation: That is Why, in Nature (does make mistakes, unintended?) that a MAVORiTE (Mr.) can inadvertly End-up in-a SPORADES (Ms.) BODY viza viz, via the socalled 'SPERM-DELUGE" or Spermatozoa Race!

Hence: Why We EKCLAT-i-ON's (not Offs) Understand this Phenomoneon, but Not HOMOSEXUALS, Bi-SEXUALS & LESBiANS, whose XY or XX is Normal, but instead Psych themselves to Think otherwise or Dabble in Modern HORMONE techniques to do [Defy self] otherwise. It's Tantamount to Suicide! Soo, a naturaly mistaken Zygote of a Transvestite' is something that Trans{finite Civilization Understands, but not , not 'Self Induced' a-gender!
--------------------------------------------------

This is the Miracle awareness of All Conception {Bio-Carbon Form, Based Birth, is an unstoppable 'Purpose' and forever & always "Bursting [Us] Forth" {Hence the Meaning of the word 'EC{LAT + "i"..} for another DUE-TO-BE moment}. Please see "i" 1st post below @ 10:58Pm.

Apocalyptically speaking, SPERM is COLD & EGG is HOT. Meaning that Colder-Sperm (X & or Y) gets Bio-Finitely 'Attracted' (pulled, like a force of Gravity) towards the Warmer-OVUM (Egg, X). Hint: ICE melts because it Sucks (pulls) the HEAT. But colder Sperm (not Ice) (pushes) "iTSELF" toward the Heat, "IT" {HEURiSTiCa/o Potentiate is Conscious, wants to re-form iTSELF again! A Miracle in "IT"s own RiGHeousness! Hence The Hol{i}-Cosmic FREQUENCY, aka the "4 Degress of Hol{i} Cosmic Seperation"!

Please Bear With me: Yes, like a large Object (Egg) attracts the Smaller Object (Sperm head & body) via Gravity, that Cold attracts , knowingly "ITSELF" (like climbing a Rope/cord or a rubber-band suddenly contracting after letting-go) towards the Warmer Egg! An innate Phenomen-onical RACE for Survival to Become What What is [potentiate] Becoming!

Note: The Warm Egg Does not Attract the cold Sperm. The Cold, somewhat like Thermal Dynamics, knows where to Go! (towards hot)! Soo

The MORAL & the Point is that, a 'HUE{MATE' is not a 'HUE{MATE' until after the Brain [via GESTATiON] & Spine & body organs are Fully Formed. But The Threshold for individuality of a fetus, or the Holy Cosmic EC{LATi HEURiSTiC/a/o [immortal Soul] placement [blessings], begins to form at around 24 Days! But Realease from the Past Life into a current Life, does not Materialize Untill one is Birthed!

Example: Miscarriages & Accidents are Common. Viral infections or Malnutrition or constant Physical or Radiationaly bombardment will effect the HUE{mate Potentiate. In Other words, "IT Ain't Over Untill It's Over"!

So, if one wants or needs or has to Abort a HUE{MATE Potentiate that that is upto that persons Family & Friends. So If John McCain & Cindy McCai , her Kids & Family, , et al; believe a HUE{MATE is at , firstblush, at "The Moment Of Conception", then Let Sara Palin & McCains & Rick Warrens, Chuck Colsons, Richard Lands, Mike Huckabees, John Hagee's et al,

Stand On Line with Check Books & Adoption Papers!!!! The The CATHOLiCS & the EVANGELiCALS adopt [Or Support] Every DUE-TO-BE Baby in AMERiCA & All Earth!

PS:, not BS, If, and Only If they (McCains et al) Promise? to Do this 'Outreach' [End Abortion Here & on Earth] W/OUT TAX PAYERS DOLLARS, but with Church Tax-Free Dollars; Then Rick Warrens Congregation , Evangelicals, Catholics & their Leaderships have a Deal!

ELSE: Do Not Fix What Is Not Broken! [i.e., Roe Vs. Wade].

------------------

2: On DEATH (Via Natural/Murderd/killed/Aborted):

FEAR NOT HUE{MATE(s), Not HUMAN(s);

Apocalyptically Spakething, that DEATH...

[by NAtural or by Misscariage or Abortion or by Murder or by being Blown-up in Iraq etc.]

... is NOT YE (You & World) "TRANS{FiNiTE (REALiTY on a Holy Move) DEATH!"

Meaning, That YE "BiO-FiNiTE" DEATH [Carbon Based] DEATH, is NOT Ye "HEURiSTiC/a/o Photonic DEATH"! Not ye Holy Immortal PHOTON-ESSENCE Death!

We JUSTLY, appear, in PHOTON-Mist Form, For a time in 'TiME' (via Holy 'TEMPERATURE', not Clock or space cock time ; a Miracle of Many). OR

O.U.R. Photonic Mortal 'Mist-Forms' always returneth & thus Goes back to the Visible MATTER Earth; but OUR Photonic 'Essence-Form' [HEURiSTiC/a/o] always returneth & thus , like a invisible Boomarang, returneth to thee HOL{i}-NO-WO-MEN, aka SOURCE-ONE, aka EPONYMOUS EKCLAHT + "i" = LiFE/Photons Awareness via the 5th-Dimention of 9-Dimentionals, aka the NON-GRAViTY PLACE for another ESCHATOLOGiCAL POSSiBiLiTiES of another SPERM Evolving {MEME's]! Ya Ya!

iNCAMERA (Secret): During Conception; at the Flash-Point of Ye hol{i} DUE-TO-BEing Moment, forming in the UTERO-Bio-Carbon-Womb[Ye MOMMA] , That the HEURiSTiCa/o {SOUL in Fact, MEMETiCly represented] gets Planted/embedded in YE FRONTAL-LOBE. aka the Holy cosmic "Heuristica/o (SOULs) Holy Carbon Based "COSMiC SAFE DEPOSiT BOX"; Justly for a TiME (via Hol{i} TEMPERATURE)!

Like The Hol{i}-NO-MEN, aka an "IT" (G-D being iTSELF in and of Us ALL, animates + Innamiates), that Ye Immortal HEURiSTiCa/o (SOUL) cannot be Seen, because it is not Gravity Bound, when Leaving the Holy Cosmic Frontal Lobe!! "IT" takes on "IT"s own Cosmic GESTATiON, for another DUE-TO-BE Moment!

THEREFORE: Say; HALLALUYA! Praise The HOL{i}-NO-WO-MEN! LiFE, as We know "IT" is a MIRACLE & Birth too & Zero Biblical Sin nor biblical Cursed!

REMEMBER SURViVAL OF THE FiTTEST & 'CHOICE' {aka 'ECONOMiCS']:

Suppose an advanced Race & their HUE{mate-made Space-Ship [note: the $cientology & Nation Of Islam Believe This] Cometh Today to visit S.pace-S.hip Ma-Pa-EARTH, aka S.S. GEOiD, aka S.S. GAiA, S.S. TELLUSng something. And suppose

Ye are Askth {having 2 Kids} that Only 1 can cometh to X-World; Then What Would Ye Do? Note: Grand-Ma/Pa SUN/SOLOR will Scorch the Earth to a Cinder in Due time via 'TiME'. Hence the Choice in 2.2 or 3.3 Billion Years From Today; Not Biblical ARMAGEDON Storys & songs, not via Biblical DiSPENSATiON storys & songs not via any Biblical Versions [i.e., King James Bible] END OF time ,

A HUMAN-MADE (zero Hue{mate aware) Storys & songs; NO/not Apocalyptic thinking as in genuine Holy Cosmic TiME/TEMP thinking!.

Please, Do Not turn a YES into a NO! nor a NO into a YES with Situationaly Wordmerchandizing to the Contrary, as so soo many BOLLiXED imagining Folks, wrongly, not rightly, do, hence fool themselves or are in Denial to selves & others & loved ones too.; all PRE-APOCALYPTiCALLY!

AMAZiNG () NO GRACE!

---- Note: Where There is HOPE, there is LiFE via Prayer (talking) & via Meditation (listening)!

Behold: “The RELiGiON of Everything, before the Science of Everything is now Upon-Us, in U.S.!” a Genuine ‘AMERiC-MADE” , but TRUE (opposite of MYTH) Religion SYSTEM, as Promised & Prophesied, Us EC{LATARiANs, aka JO{KTAN-ian Nationals of America [not PELEGs], in all ye 3-Major “iNFiXUS-BOOKS” [Tenach/Bibles, Quran/Korans, Gita/Tripitakas].
.
.
WELCOME! Please Help-Us APOCALYPT-ARiAN-NATiONALis MOVEMENT of AMERiCA & Beyond, Celebrate the “International Year [of] Astronomy", 2009. Gallaleo’s 400th Year Anniversary [another Vatican Church Victim deprived of freedom by Pre-Apocalyptarians]! Thank You!
.
.
IYA2009
.
.
Be sure to visit the Authors of "THE BiBLE OF THE FUTURE". Yes! A Prophecy whose TiME is Cometh!

By: http:////.......({..J..}).......({..O..}).......({..Z..}).......({...E.}).......({..V..}).......({..Z..})........dot...... US

.
.
O.rdained R.elationship M.inister [ORM}, Revelator & Defender of the 'Holy Cosmic Feeler Faith, aka 'Ho-Co-Fe-Fa' System; a belief like a religion, yet better & a Lover of "O.U.R.-B.O.T.", aka the Holy-Cosmic Bible, aka "O.ne U.niversal R.eligion B.ook O.f T.rans{Finity}"

Hasn't been alot of consistency on this issue over the years. Al Gore and Joe Biden both once proclaimed themselves to be "pro-life." Even Jesse Jackson once referred to abortion as "genocide" until he wanted a greater share of the national spotlight.

Wonderful column. I have often made the same argument, noting that the terms "anti-abortion" and "pro-life" are misnomers, since even the staunchest reproductive rights supporters are not pro-abortion or anti-life. To the contrary, none of us think abortion is a good thing, and, in fact, many of us might not choose abortion for ourselves. What we do fervently believe, however, is that this extremely important and personal decision should not be forced on anyone by our government. Rather, the very essence of individual liberty upon which our country was founded mandates that our government should not impose citizens' individual religious beliefs on the populace as a whole.

Oops - that should be "we should be doing more to prevent as many UNplanned pregnancies as possible."

I find it laughable to hear the same people who are excited about the possibilty of single celled life on another planet then turn around and say that a fetus is not alive at the time of conception. Why is it not? It has all the charcteristics of life. It has cells, organization, uses energy, homeostasis, grows, and reproduces. Therefore an abortion is murder. I think that the main argument for abortion is that an abortion can allow another generation to continue on in with a "If it feels good, do it" attitude. If you want to want to have fun but can't or don't want to face the consequences of your actions, give the child up for adoption...don't murder the child. There are so many couples out there who desperately want to have children but for some reason can't and they would be happy to raise that child.

I believe that the soul of the aborted goes back to God to be placed in a more deserving body.

"So do we legislate moral decisions based on our inability to affect adherence to our laws?"

There are cases when trying to affect adherence not only doesn't stop the harm that the law was intended to address, but actually causes more harm. The question of abortion's legality is really too small - we should be doing more to prevent as many planned pregnancies as possible.

I've read some comments on this post questioning how often does rape actually occur, and how often does pregnancy result. Well, first a couple of years ago, there was an article in the washington post with statistics stating that a woman is sexually assaulted (pretty name for rape) every 3 minutes and I've seen statistics on documentaries and in other articles and literary pieces that the occurrence is even more frequent. With that many instances, stands to reason that the pregnancies would add up to more than 1% of total pregnancies period!

I agree with you, as far as you go here. I would point out that McCain has said that, while he would like to see Roe overturned, he would nominate jurists like Sam Alito and John Roberts who decline to legislate from the bench. At their confirmation hearings, both men said they would err on the side of adhering to precedent. Roe has been precedent for 36 years. Not only that, there have been decisions based on Roe that are now precedent. Seems to me if there were a case so extreme that such jurists could argue warranted overturning all that precedent, a majority of Americans who want to see fewer abortions might well agree with them.

Summa Contra writes
"The one statement that I never understand from the pro-choice movement is "we want to make abortion legal, safe, and rare." The "rare" is what I do not get. Well, if the choice of abortion comes down to individual morality, why waste any energy, time, or money to make it rare?"

Because we take the concerns of your side seriously. Maybe you ought to consider looking at other people's points of view and learning a little about compromise, which is how a Democracy works!

Choice is clear writes "the choice becomes raising the child yourself (keep) or place the child for adoption (not keep). No one would be forcing women to become mothers. My wife and I (along with rapidly growing numbers of american) can't conceive, so we just adopted a baby boy from Korea. If there was no abortion in the US, we would simply adopt domestic children."

If that were true we wouldn't have thousands of kids languishing in our awful foster care programs. BTW, side question - why is adoption so expensive? Shouldn't it be as close to free as possible?

anonymous writes "Non-Christians have "no morals" they only say that they have to get by in life as not to be judged harshly by the public. They lie, cheat, deceive, steal, back-bite, are perverted, gossip, revengeful, cruel, and are the most hateful people that exist."

You could say the same about Christians and you'd also be on the mark. You are an ignorant bigot.

Bill writes "There is no doubt that there will be less abortions if it is made illegal"

I disagree. Read "In the Land of God and Man" which documents that in countries that outlaw abortion, sex education and birth control, women have many more abortions than in the USA.

Bryan in Leesburg writes "Why is the state not suited to make a decision on abortion"

Same reason the state can't board soldiers in your home or go through your personal papers. It's not the state's dang business. I don't want to live in a totalitarian state.

Dwight writes
"a women carries the sin of murder for her abortion...
a doctor carries the sin of genocide for the abortions he performed...
a supporter of abortion carries the sin of genocide for all the abortion murders..."

By your logic the only people who are without sin are those who have murdered abortion providers and bombed abortion clinics. By your logic, anyone who voted for President Bush carries the sin of every Iraqi civilian killed in the occupation, which includes thousands of kids.

Elizabeth writes "Statistics point to the fact that less than 1% of abortions are due to pregnancy from rape or incest. If this is true, then most woman have abortions as a matter of convenience."

Not sure where your statistics come from. Maybe you should ask some women who have undergone an abortion if it was "convenient", and than run away before they smack you! Oh, and check out what Jesus said about judgemental people.

DCP writes "Second of all, in Sarah Palin's defense, how many women are actually getting pregnant from rape in 2008 anyway? Am I the only who has heard of emergency contraception? "

Morning after pill would be illegal if the government thought "life begins at conception". Palin is against the morning after pill. Better luck next time!

Funny, its sounds as though most of the opinions here by the pro-life crowd, imply that abortion came along in the 20th century. While, the facts are that abortion has existed at least for 2000+ years probably more. In fact, I've read studies that show that in our very own country, there were almost twice as many abortions performed in a given year during the 19th century as occur now! We've banned alcohol, it came back. We banned controlled substances (illicit drugs), you can find them and buy them in almost any town, city, or community in America. What makes you think abortion would follow a different route?

Grat column!

I find the conclusion made by this writer at odds with her own arguments put forth within the article. But the premise she raises is accurate and interesting -- this for each individual is a "moral" question, but the overiding issue is a "legal" one assuming Roe vs Wade is ever overturned.

Her suggestion then that if a fetus is legally deemed a life from conception -- then the termination of that fetus is "murder" -- then doctors and mothers who would illegally perform or have an abortion post a reversal of Roe vs Wade have commited murder and should be prosecuted -- and if Palin's suggestion that the death penalty should be invoked for anyone who murders a child would become law -- the result is that doctors and mothers who would have an abortion would be executed are logical outcomes ( and very extreme punishment) of the conservative "slippery slope".

However, the opposing position offered is equally troublesome from both a legal and moral view and again the case is made in the article. The writer states that she believes life begins when a fetus is viable and can survive outside the womb. But she is silent on the legal implications for one who performs / undergoes an abortion that occurs post that time. Should this then be illegal and subject to criminal charges? If so she raises the appropriate question although she used it to question McCain's exception for rape or incest --- "What's the cutoff age for killing someone conceived under those circumstances? Three years old? 24? 86?" Or in the writers case, when post the fetus' reaching viability can it still be aborted? Is not this question equally present under the writers moral belief?

The writer's real argument isn't made until the end of the article -- "The fact is that women are going to have abortions no matter what the laws say." This is the real difference between pro-life and pro-choice proponents. So do we legislate moral decisions based on our inability to affect adherence to our laws? Isn't that what has been accomplished by Roe vs Wade? Haven't we legalized the murder of a viable fetus because we don't want to as Obama has stated "punish my daughters for their mistake (in becoming pregnant)" by either forcing them to have the children. Have we not also endorsed Roe vs Wade because we don't want to punish a doctor or mother for their actions in aborting the children?

How is this consistent with the writers admission that she believes that "My belief is that when a fetus is viable, when it can survive on its own, then it is a human being" unless the writer also asserts then that any abortion post her definition of viability must be subject to criminal prosecution?

How long can we as a society "tip toe" around the issue of murder?

"The question of when a group of cells gradually differentiating into organs can be deemed a human being, when it can be understood to have a 'soul' or an individual identity, is one that science cannot answer"

If you mean "soul" as a (claimed) metaphysical entity independent of the human body, then claims about souls are not relevant in terms of making law or policy about abortion. The identity is a secular concept, but science cannot answer it simply because the concept is so difficult to define.

In any case, one does not need a definition of when human identity starts to oppose abortion. One need only decide that it's not worth the risk.

"to impose by law the answer of one religious community, even if it is the most numerous and powerful community in this country, is a violation of the religious and human rights of those who conscientiously disagree."

I certainly agree.

If one believes that abortion is wrong and also believes that trying to legally ban abortion is unworkable, is one pro-life or pro-choice? I'm not necessarily talking about myself - I'm simply pointing out that the question of whether abortion should be legally banned is not the same question as whether abortion is wrong.

Excellent article even though it gets the evangelicals fuming. Life is so important but if there is little hope or love for the future growth of the baby held to term, then we have really failed. I wish there was a way to help future mothers and make the need for abortion rare. I would suggest the morning after pill. Babies carried to term deserve all the help and the love but most who wish the were not pregnant can't provide it. Adoption does not work, I wish it did. To eliminate Rowe Vs Wade would be a tragedy because there is always a need for some women to require that privilege.

Regarding there not being babies to adopt in the U.S., I believe what you probably meant to say is that there are not enough **white** babies to adopt in the U.S.

The idea that there is a lack of babies to adopt here -- that "the babies that would be available for adoption here are usually aborted" -- is absurd. There are tons of children in the U.S. that need homes, and it is sad that one would state that those needy children don't exist.

Besides, even if it were the case that children in need of homes were scarce here, does that mean you should have a law that makes criminals of women who want to make their own choices -- moral or otherwise -- for themselves?

Clarendon, Your post was exactly right. As the mother of a premature baby (almost 8 weeks early) - I suppose she is not a human either as she was in the NICU for 3 weeks, receiving help to breathe and eat.

Sally Quinn on Faith is an oxymoron.

Ms Quinn, I won't argue against abortion rights or as I see it, a women's right to choose. I remember abortion before legalization and depending on your age, you should as well. To me it is simply a women's right to, right or wrong, make the choice her's. The only issue for government involvement is legalizing so to keep keep the back alley butchers from plying their trade. Banning abortion won't work no more than Prohibition did and we know the damage in lives and lawlessness that law brought forth.

I find it so hypocritical to hear all the moral arguments from Pro-Righters and Republican's who see nothing wrong in killing thousands including our own in a needless war such as Iraq and then continue to promote that need as if America's life depended on it. If you want to discuss the morality of killing a fetus that has yet to be a part of this world, perhaps you should also discuss the morality of a President and Party that provided lies, half-truths, intimidation, and much spin in promoting a needless war that has killed and mained thousands of living children and adults and continue to promote it as "the right thing" to do.

I can't speak for God but I can certainly speak for myself, the discussion for murder covers more than just abortion and those such as Pro Life and writers as yourself, dishonors any legitimate abortion argument when you dismiss the other as "the right thing to do".

"If there was no abortion in the US, we would simply adopt domestic children. This is also true for tens of thousands of other Americans who adopt internationally now because the babies that would be available for adoption here are usually aborted."

Did you even LOOK at domestic adoption first before you went overseas? There are many infants available for adoption. They're just not white or Asian. There are also thousands of kids in the foster care system that are awaiting parents. I've done some research into this because my husband and I are considering adopting an older child.

"Medical science has made it possible to keep very early fetuses alive, regardless of the quality of life"

This statement is untrue. My wife and I lost a set of twins when she started to lose ambiotic fluid at the end of the 5th Month of Pregnancy. We are very affluent and have excellent medical coverage. The doctors (five different individuals)told us specifically, that there was not any technology that could save either fetus. All would could do was wait and see while my stayed on bed rest in the hospital for about a week and a half.

I was born two months premature. I wouldn't have been able to survive if it wasn't for the technology that kept me breathing until I was able to do so on my own. So, according to Ms. Quinn's logic, I must not have been a human being. Quinn's "religion" is relativism. She chooses not to believe in truth but has defined her own flawed perception of "morality."
She also speaks of pregnancy as if it just magically happens to women. To remind Ms. Quinn in case she forgot, pregnancy happens when a man and woman have sex. If you can't afford to be pregnant, you shouldn't have sex. If you choose to have sex outside of marriage, you must be ready to accept the consequences. People are not animals (despite what the Darwinists think). Quinn makes it seem like there is no other way out except abortion. What about adoption?
Abortion was founded as a eugenic practice (read up on Planned Parenthood's founder Margaret Sanger). This is evident today as 90% of babies found to have down syndrome in the womb are aborted. If that is not eugenics, please tell me what is.
The fact that this woman is a blogger on faith is absolutely nauseating.

The one statement that I never understand from the pro-choice movement is "we want to make abortion legal, safe, and rare." The "rare" is what I do not get. Well, if the choice of abortion comes down to individual morality, why waste any energy, time, or money to make it rare? The fetus has no personhood, some presume, so you cannot be committing a crime or an evil act. We work as a society to make violent crime "rare", but we spend no time on making "nose piercing" rare. If it is a procedure with the moral equivalency, for some or all, of filling tooth cavity, removing a mole, etc., why so much worry about making it "rare"? I see no national movement to reduce the number of rhinoplasties, for instance, which is a certainly a medical matter of individual preference and choice.

Is the "rare" part just a half-hearted effort to appeal to the pro-life or is it a recognition that there is some gravely, morally wrong with abortion on so many levels.

"My belief is that when a fetus is viable, when it can survive on its own, then it is a human being."

Really? What about infants? They can't survive on their own. Neither can elderly people with dementia or the mentally handicapped. Are they not human beings? Unless you approve of the killing of infants and the elderly, you are being wildly inconsistent.

"My beliefs are based, not on religion, but on my own sense of morality."

In other words, your beliefs are arbitrary. You believe whatever feels right in the moment. This is not any different than saying "I believe what I want to believe."

(Post-)Modern western society, heir to the Enlightenment traditions of logic and humanistic reason, fundamentally seeks to protect the rights of individual "persons."

Questions of abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment and collateral damage (and, perhaps theistic faith vs. atheism) are primarily questions of who/what is a person.

We classify our species scientifically as "Homo sapiens": thinking humans.

A fetus, as opposed to a person, is not "thinking" or rational. This isn't a matter of independent viability...a newborn is no more independently viable than a fetus. A newborn infant is, however, a developing thinker--not the highest claim to personhood, but great potential.

A former genius who endures life with dementia, likewise, is not a thinking human...and has no common potential to regain such a status. "Death with dignity"--as if the processes of putrescence ever come in a dignified manner--is justifiable for non-thinking non-humans. Once personhood is lost, so is a claim to murder.

And our enemies--either terrorists or criminals--are also stripped of personal claims to being thinking humans. These are brainwashed monsters: they do not think, they merely act on internalized evil. The axis of evil is not human, therefore it is able to be bombed or lethally injected without moral qualms for "thinking humans."

[The unthinking environment can also be ignored as anything other than raw material for human thinkers' use...which is why so many strictly Enlightenment thinkers seek to protect the environment because it benefits human life, not because it is inherently and independently good.]

And as for the Divine.... For biblical believers at least, "God" is not a rational, reasonable, logical deduction. "God" exists in mystery and faith--not as something illogical, but alogical. For the children of the Enlightenment, atheim (and subtly not antitheism) is the only appropriate choice.

But I write this as a believer...and I find freedom to live in the freedom from having to be merely a thinking human (while I am not willing to forego the divine blessing and responsibility of thinking). For biblical believers, human (and universal, i.e. "catholic") worth is not dependent on "thinking" or "viability", but rather on a divine proclamation that the One who (ironically) engages this cosmos personally has said: "This is very good;" "in relation to this, I am love."

For those who claim human and created worth is derived from a biblically divine and alien imposition of worth from God to creature, there is no justifiable grounds for abortion, execution, warfare, euthanasia--save for the direct, explicit, unavoidable protection of another equally worthy human life.

And rather than asking for a codepenent government to make these moral and ethical calls, these messy wrestlings with our western traditions need to be dealt with by our people if we ever hope to grow in maturity.

I appreciate and agree with your thoughtful analysis. However, I take exception to one phrase in your discussion. Surely this is overly pedantic on my part, but on a matter that is so fraught, every word that we use to address it takes on significance.

Many writers, like you, talk about abortion being allowed (or not) to "save the life of the mother." But by definition the woman who is having the abortion is not a "mother", at least as to that fetus. It would be useful if those of us who believe women should have the legal right to determine whether or not to bear children would remember not to call them mothers until they decide to accept that status.

Thank you for your consideration.

Nobody is for abortion, but let's be realistic we're talking about who controls a women/girls body. It appears as if conservatives don't trust their women to make decisions. If I were a women I'd be horrified if fat old white men sitting in Washington made decisions on what I do to my own body. Right or wrong it's her body and everyone should keep their hands off.

Declan,

Its always so easy for someone to say who will never have to be pregnant. No one can be forced to be a parent. In my opinion, protecting something that is, at this stage, microscopic is not important enough to condemn a woman to ruin her life.

As for imposing our religious views on you, that doesn't make any sense. We are taking religion out of the equation. If you decide that it is a sin according to your religious beliefs - then you don't have to do it. So you can follow your religious beliefs. Don't take away our right to do the same though. What I do to my body does not effect you. There's a great song out there called "If you don't want an abortion, don't get one". Like those t-shirts I've seen about if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry one. People need to mind their own business and let others make their own decisions.

I also do not understand anyone in today's overpopulated world wanted to force people to bring even more people into it.

A well-written and thoughtful article. I believe that both sides were presented well. I agree with the writer. Even though my personal opinion about abortion is more restrictive than some pro-choice people, I do not believe that my belief/opinion should dominate over that of someone else. Anyone caught in the gap of having to make the ultimate decision for a developing fetus should have the legal option to make a wise decision. To return to illegal abortions that truly risk the life of the mother is not an option that I think pro-life people have thought about because of the political dimension of this debate. Let's face it, until abortion rose to the level of religious-right politics, there was not much said.

No one undergoes an abortion lightly. It is not a matter of convenience, but of utmost necessity to those who seek it. It is a scary, painful, difficult, procedure. We will always question its morality, because we feel that there is a difference in animal life and human life. Many say that humans have a immortal soul, and thus ensoulment determines human life. Does it happen at conception, or later? Just because a group of cells are alive, and have human DNA does not make them a human being--we remove parts of humans that are alive routinely in surgery. We now know that we could clone some of those cells to grow a new "human". When does human life begin? At conception and/or cloning? At quickening? At viability? At ensoulment?
I may disagree with what you think with every fiber of my being, but I will fight to the death for your right to have that belief.
Paraphrasing an American Creed.

Quote: ... "because it would force women in America to undergo illegal and dangerous operations"

Question: Who exactly would force women in America to "undergo illegal and dangerous operations" ????

What a costly distraction it is to spend decades debating the indeterminate morality of a procedure that willl always be with us, while disipating those resources which could be otherwise spent reducing the necessity, or perceived necessity for this procedure.

You say that Palin's duaghter would not have had the choice to keep/not keep her child if Palin was in charge. This is not true at all - the choice becomes raising the child yourself (keep) or place the child for adoption (not keep). No one would be forcing women to become mothers. My wife and I (along with rapidly growing numbers of american) can't conceive, so we just adopted a baby boy from Korea. If there was no abortion in the US, we would simply adopt domestic children. This is also true for tens of thousands of other Americans who adopt internationally now because the babies that would be available for adoption here are usually aborted.

At the point a fetus becomes "viable", it still cannot survive 'on its own.' Nor can a newborn, nor a 3-month-old, nor a 6-month-old, nor an 18-month old. All of these children require constant, and perhaps specialized, care. So human life, for Sally, is defined as the tipping point of biological independence from the gestational vehicle (the mother). Why not then make the beginning of life around age 7 or so, when children begin to develop moral reasoning -- if moral reasoning is what separates man from beast? Isn't abortion-on-demand just another form of eugenics?

I think we will look back on this debate in 100 years or so and be horrified at our sorry 'logic' (not morality) in justifying abortion. Leave it to mankind to define life in terms relative only to himself -- "If I can't see it, it must not exist. (Despite the fact that I existed in that state.) Therefore, it's okay to just toss it out with the trash."

In this day and age, there is simply no excuse for conception without intention, except in the case of rape or incest. In cases of rape or incest, abortion may be considered justifiable homicide, even though the fetus is certainly an innocent victim. The trauma of forcing a woman to bear a pregnancy forced upon her serves the interest of protecting her health and her right not to be further victimized.

Finally, I am so tired of hearing about how we will return to 'hangers' and 'alleyways' if Roe v. Wade is overturned. That's just pro-choice fear-mongering.

Sally writes:

"My belief is that when a fetus is viable, when it can survive on its own, then it is a human being."

Hmm, I don't recall that newborns, toddlers, the disabled, the infirm, and so on can "survive on its own" without the care and attention of other human beings. If you are pinned in an overturned car, bleeding profusely, and holding onto consciousness by a thread, you cannot "survive on your own" without the state--in this case, in the form of a publicly-funded fire/rescue, EMT service--saving your life? Correct me if I am wrong.

Then Sally says:

"If Palin were in charge, though, her daughter would not have had the option to make that decision. The state would have made it for her."

Again, the state is making many hundreds of decisions about what we do with our bodies and our minds every day. Just try to obtain an illegal drug, not pay your taxes, drive over the speed limit, concoct some white-lightening moonshine in a still behind your house, read or view contraband materials, ad infinitum...

Sally, your illogic escapes me...

Some observations-

1. 51 comments so far and the words tubal ligations and vasectomies are not mentioned. Maybe not approved by the RCC, but definitely preferred over the potential problems that the guilt of abortion brings about.

2. Also, no comments about the sex drive, selling sex and abortion. Two million hits on Google using the word "p--n" shows the situation instantly. It is obvious sex is here to stay. The development, sales and profit from ED drugs, are added proof of this but it does show that the sex drive can be controlled by pills. So where are the pills to eliminate the sex drive??

3. The abortion drug RU-486 can now be purchased on-line without prescription. Therefore, the choice to abort is now solely that of the carrier of said life.

This is a well-constructed argument on both sides of the issue. I get frustrated that presidential elections, for many constituents, become "one issue" opportunities about abortion. Roe v. Wade isn't going to change anytime soon. Even if the stack the courts, it is a very improbable action. If it does get overturned or has major changes, expect a revolt in the US by by women and men the likes we have never seen. Really, think about it: the federal government, via the Supreme Court, all of the sudden, through one judgement, alienates approximately 80 to 100 million pro-choice advocates. That's different than losing an election; this time, it will be about each of those individual's human rights.

Meanwhile, I am similarly interested how we can balance pro-life with little concern for what we do in the war zone or in our prisons. Over 4,000 US lives have been lost in Iraq (and over 25,000 seriously wounded soldiers), let alone over 60,000 Iraqi dead. These are OK? We are OK with collateral damage to "protect" our other unalienable rights? Seems hypocritical to me. And the death penalty doesn't make any sense from a pro-life standpoint. It is akin to talking out of both sides of one's mouth: it is bad to kill first-trimester fetuses but OK to kill criminals? On what moral grounds? (and, the research is unequivocal: capital punishment does not deter criminal intent or actions).

For what it's worth.

I find it appalling that the Pro-Life crowd is, generally speaking, the same crowd that fully favors bombing the hell out of anyone we declare our enemies. Including innocent women and children.

Republicans and Right Wing Christians are generally speaking the most murderous element of our American society. Were they "really" Pro-Life they would raise "Holy Hell" about all the killings we, as a nation, engage in around the world!

Outrageous & incongruous, Ms. Quinn! The first 3/4 of your commentary was cogent and well-written, but then you veered off the road and off a cliff.

What mother-to-be is truly "ready" for motherhood? I have 3 beautiful children, and my wife fought emotional battles while carrying each one. "I'm not ready" is a disgusting excuse to kill a human fetus! If one is a new dog owner and struggles to feed and care for that puppy, they are jailed for animal cruelty if they simply kill it out of convenience sake, or for any reason for that matter! Why the constant double-standard for HUMANS??!!

I'm accused of forcing my relgious views on you, but you're untouchable when you force your "religious" views about "fetus viability" on me! What gives? To take your argument to the extreme, like you did to suggest killing adults who were born out of incest or rape, shouldn't we "terminate" children or adults who no longer are "viable" and can't physically survive on their own? Sure would free up a lot of beds at the local hospice...

You made a good initial argument to say that all life is sacred but then you made a wicked left turn at the end and contradicted ever balanced argument you initially proposed. Do you read what you write?

Finish the arguments you start, take a stand, and get off the fence! Liberal thinkers lack a fundamental sense of foundational truth and rely on the changing winds of science and society to guide them willy-nilly through life. Choose your Guide wisely, Ms. Quinn. Heck, just choose SOMETHING other than a fence rail!...

Of course he changed his position to get elected. We have had abortion bans and liquor bans and prostitution bans and all manner of bans. Uniformly they stem from religious beliefs. Look at the Supreme Court. Scalia is Catholic with a passel of kids. One is a priest. How is his legal reasoning skewed by his religion? We know the answer to that one. Religion of any stripe or ilk is pure mythology whether it was Anu, Sun Ra, Zeus, Jupiter whatever. This does not mean the values of Christianity or Islam or Judaism are worthless. Some are very good. But they came from men, not anywhere else. Nobody likes abortion, but take religion out of the debate, and there is no debate.

I guess Sally is desperate for hype, so she does an abortion column. How many people here feel a little manipulated by this tactic? Catholic Arroyo does the same thing every other week - he wants a lot of responses and so he does something about abortion.
Abortion is only central to this campaign for Palin supporters. McCain places no importance on the "life" issue. Supporters of the Democratic ticket would not list abortion in their top issues.
Honestly Sally, using the emotion around the abortion issue just to generate controversy cheapens what is a serious issue that people honorably disagree on. Show some respect for your readers!

Let's stipulate that Bishop Wuerl is right in claiming that "When life begins is a matter of science not of faith" For the bishop life begins at conception. And for the bishop there is an absolute right to life once it has begun.

When the bishop uses the word life, but he isn't talking about life. He is only talking about human fetuses. A cow is a new life at the moment of conception as well if one is interested in science, but the bishop has no problem aborting a cow pregnancy. I believe the bishop would claim that animals do not have an absolute right to life. What make animals different? Two reasons are offered. God gave man dominion over the animals. Humans have immortal souls. Both of these are claims religious claims. That is why anti abortionists use the deliberately misleading phrase "pro life" to describe their anti abortion phrase - they are not pro life, there are at best pro human life. Their reasons are religious not scientific. Their words are chosen to deliberately mislead and obscure the religious basis for their views.

An honest pro life position would go something like this:

All life is sacred. By that I mean "All life" from the single celled animal to the invertebrates. And by sacred I don't mean, subject to the views of a particular church, rather I mean valued and respected by all living things. There is no where to be found in the world as it actually exists any hint of an absolute right to life anywhere. But there is a respect for life built into all life. You don't find examples of wanton, meaningless killing, but there is plenty of killing.

If we agree that life begins at conception and we hold that life is sacred and cannot be taken wantonly, then where do we come out on abortion. Well certainly it is taking a life or killing even from the moment of conception. But that isn't the question. We need to ask whether there are ever sufficient reasons for one life to take another. And the answer to be found in the world is yes, there are lots of reasons for one life to take another, and the anti abortion crowd agrees. In the case of human life most of them support capital punishment. Most of them eat meat. and on and on.

The argument can continue, but there is no denying that what is currently called "pro-life" is a deliberate attempt at dishonesty in trying to make a religious issue seem like something else. And it's very hard to have a discussion when arguments are formulated to be dishonest and misleading.

I agree 100% with Archbishop Donald Wuerl. I understand ectopic pregnancies would inevitably lead to death for both the mother and the child, and a termination would be appropriate in that circumstance. I do however remember one of the old ladies in my church giving a testimony (when abortion was not a hot topic) that the doctors told her she was going to die if she gave birth, and both she and her child survived the delivery. So I believe doctors can be fuzzy on that issue, especially if a woman really really really wants an abortion anyway.

Second of all, in Sarah Palin's defense, how many women are actually getting pregnant from rape in 2008 anyway? Am I the only who has heard of emergency contraception? It is given to all rape victims who report to a hospital or police station after being violated. Not counting children who are being sexually violated, this is where real rape victims go after being raped. I don't know how many women wait until they are seven months pregnant to cry "rape". Too late. Now incest is truly a tragedy. Not an easy answer for that one.

"Non-Christians have "no morals" they only say that they have to get by in life as not to be judged harshly by the public. They lie, cheat, deceive, steal, back-bite, are perverted, gossip, revengeful, cruel, and are the most hateful people that exist.

They are as cold hearted as a human can be, can stand in your face and speak peace, love, and harmony, and all the while they are making war against you. So don’t speak about them as having morals because if there is such a thing as what the world believes is Satan, they are in league with him. They do not know anything about loving unconditionally, compassion, integrity, and sacrificing for what is true, honorable, and sincere. It is no wonder they all believe the same, they all are a like, including you, adulteress!! How do you feel about breaking up someone’s home? I wonder how you can sleep at night!"
*
*
*
I just have to ask: how do *you* sleep at night with all that hate bubbling away inside? It must be exhausting.

It's a good thing I sleep well, or I'd never get through all the deceit, vengeance, perversion, thievery, lying, gossip, cruelty, cold manipulation, warmaking, satan-supporting, and adultery I'm expected to perform every day. Busy, busy, busy.

I tell you, it's a good thing I have good Christians like "Anonymous" to show me how to be properly hateful, otherwise I might never manage to stay angry enough to get it all done.

"I have total respect for those who believe that life begins at conception. I do not. My belief is that when a fetus is viable, when it can survive on its own, then it is a human being."

Sally, Silly, Sally: what baby san "survive" on its own? What one year old, two year old, three year old can "survive on its own"?

Hell, Sally, if it were not for Big Ben, YOU couldn't survive on your own.

Dummy.

Yes, John McCain has chosen the path of no morals, no conscience or no ethics in his pursuit of the Presidency. John McCain, you've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? (Joe Welsh to Joe McCarthy) So how far have we come in our political arena, another Republican trying to use lies to justify his own means.

If science cannot tell us when life begins and religion's stance is unacceptable, then wouldn't it be prudent to err on the side of caution and assume that life begins at conception and thus act accordingly?

Statistics point to the fact that less than 1% of abortions are due to pregnancy from rape or incest. If this is true, then most woman have abortions as a matter of convenience.

Woman should have the right to choose- to choose to keep their legs shut. Past that, their rights should not trump the rights of the life inside of them.

--------------------------------------------------
"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."

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library

yes, yes, yes

I think a good point was made earlier about the irresponsibility of solely pro-life voters. It's indicative of the kind of lazy thinking that produces fervent Christians - the surrender of one's own capacity for reason or judgment in favor of a simplistic and easy to apply moral standard. Anyone ever wonder what those little booklets in the front of most churches are? the ones entitled things like "God and your Family?" They're morality cliff notes. Facing a moral dilemma? Just look it up and discover what your friendly local clergyman wants you to believe. Never mind that an increasing number of those booklets have nothing at all to do with religion, and everything to do with politics. The real reason those things are so popular is that most Christians can't be bothered to actually read the bible, and most clergy don't really want them to. After all, the book is so full of conflicting demands and outright lunacy that anyone who actually followed all of the rules would be forced to commit mass murder on a regular basis over things like crop rotation and hat choice (anyone here ever actually read Leviticus?). Frankly, if we have a definition of human life it ought to exclude anyone who fails to utilize that most characteristic of human abilities - reason. By that standard, there are a lot of voluntary self-abortions walking the halls of the average religious institution come Sunday.

Abortion in cases of rape under McCain and Palin would result in the victim being charged for the rape kit to prove a rape took place and then the arrest of the victim if she refused to give birth to the bastard.

Denial of abortion in cases of incest would result in a society composed of inbred idiot bastards.

(Anyone objecting to my use of the word bastard, please remember I am using the actual meaning of the word.)

My questions are simple:

If the Roman Catholic Corporation and the Protestant Corporation spin-offs are opposed to ending pregnancies on a morality basis, why do they not work to make abortions unnecessary in our society by supporting universal health care and material assistance to mothers and children?

Why is it in our Christian nation are the majority of those in poverty women and children?

Why did we pass laws to deny women in poverty additional assistance for any child born after the first couple? How can it be immoral to end a pregnancy, but not to starve a child? If it is only going to die of starvation anyway, why object to women who stop those pregnancies?

Please explain Christian morality, because I really do not see any in this society. It would be nice to live in a civilized society, but that would be a real miracle.

There are only two rationally consistent positions.

1.) Life begins at conception, and abortion is thus murder.
2.) Abortion should be permitted, but so should child-killing up to some age agreed to by society.

The idea that a fetus is not a human being is an unscientific position that is based on misconceptions of what a human being is. We are self-maintaining machine that houses a recipe, which includes our existence as a microscopic ball of cells early in life. The idea that a fetus is not human is an analogue of racism (how could that be human, it's just a ball of cells).

That is not to say that this issue is the issue that should decide elections. Republicans may generally be pro-life with respect to abortion, but they are anti-life in pretty much every other conceivable respect. The evidence is prolific. Nor do they pursue what would be the most logical course of action in a society where abortion is legal - which would be abortion reduction (widely available condoms, extensive sexual education, extensive government resources to help single mothers, etc.). In all actuality, they could be more accurately said to hate life, and use abortion as a surrogate issue to fool the less thoughtful into voting for them. Abortion may be evil, but viewed in the totality, Republican policy is far less respecting of human life.

Ms Quinn, a child in the womb is innocent, no matter how conceived!! What I find troubling is Biden's argument that he believes life begins at conception but is poised to murder that life for political expediency.

If we can destroy human life when it is not viable what about all of those folks in rest home across the nation. How many things are there out there that cannot breathe on their own, feed themselves, go to the bathroom etc.. Doesn't that argument logically apply to them too? What about prisoners with life sentences or on death row and their quality of life? When we begin killing as a matter of convenience or to avoid unpleasantness or hardship, and that is what abortion is, where does it stop?

The intellectual level of the discussion here would seem to confirm earlier evidence that few if any who comment on this issue have the basic mental faculties necessary to even discuss this topic intelligently, let alone resolve it.

For example, there seems rather clearly to be no combination of demonstrable fact and valid logic that tells us when life begins, yet discussants like Ms. Quinn herself seem to offer their beliefs as if they were based on absolutely certain knowledge.

Perhaps this is not surprising when the discussion takes place within the mental morass of "morality," and tacitly assumes that morality is based in some objective and absolute certainty rather than being the subjective, personal and/or conditional notion that it actually seems to be.

Once, just once, I would like to see a discussion on abortion that begins from the intelligent premise that "We don't know precisely when life begins. Therefore. . .?"

MICK:
"It was interesting to note Palin's comment on how proud she was of her pregnant daughter's decision to keep her baby. If Palin were in charge, though, her daughter would not have had the option to make that decision. The state would have made it for her."

This is a straw man. We who are pro-life, given today's legal option to murder children in the womb, are proud of all women who choose to defy this evil and unjust law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having a baby is not defying any law. Having a baby would be defying an evil and unjust law if the law mandated that no one was allowed to have children.
Stop trying to make giving birth sound like an act of civil disobedience.

Abortion laws in the USA are meant to have an effect on the poor and lower middle class. All others can afford to have one even if it is not in the USA.

I am no fan of abortions and as a male I will never undergo one but I am reminded that Bob Barr anti-abortion advoctate paid for his ex-wife to have one because he wanted to divorce her and matty another woman. Dan Quayle who is pro-life said that he would provide his daughter with one if she wanted one.

Laws that affect the poor but not the rich are the meanest form of control applied in our society by hypocrites and cynics.

I know there are well intentioned people involved as well but I resist the notion that your qualms should determine the course of someone else's life.

My mother's vote goes to the anti-abortionist. She cares little for any other issue. She is a fervent Catholic.
She votes only on this issue.
I believe she is an irresponsible voter, and quite selfish.
The economy, war, foreign relations, etc...
I think that voting based on personal feelings of morality on one issue is immoral.
I wonder how many of her there are out there?

Insert comment.
If you got the dough, you can get anything you want done and will.

The most sensible way to avoid abortion is to avoid becoming pregnant. This is the 21st century, we have ways of preventing this, first and foremost, abstinence followed by other chemical and mechanical means. Then, we have people who feel anything connected with their body is part of it and they can do what they wish with their own body. We have others who think life begins when there is a gleam in someone's eye. Everybody has a view on this, it will be the same bone of contention hundreds of years from now if the world still is in existence. One person's way of thinking will not sway everybody else to make it their way as well.

'President' Obama is OK with viable babies who have survived an abortion being killed because life might inconvenience the doctor. Where is the morality in this?
The question of when life begins is a difficult one, but the question of when it ends is very easy to determine. For the unborn, it ends with a saline injection to burn them up, or when they are cut into pieces, or when their head is cut open and their brains are sucked out. If pondering these procedures offends any of you or makes you very uncomfortable, perhaps you should consider the basis of your own morality instead of being so quick to judge those who are religious and value life even under difficult circumstances (like Palin).
The cost in 'lost life' from abortion in the US is nearly equal to a 9-11 each day. Is this moral? Over the years the toll has nearly equalled or exceeded the slaughter of secularists like Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Is this moral?
As to the idea that abortions are going to happen anyway, the same can be said of murder with weapons like guns. They are going to happen no matter what the law says.

if there were no abortion, America would not need foreign workers...there would be more than 12.5% of blacks in America...

how many have you aborted sally...
a women carries the sin of murder for her abortion...
a doctor carries the sin of genocide for the abortions he performed...
a supporter of abortion carries the sin of genocide for all the abortion murders...
the last group would include you sally...

One thing that consistently disappears from the American abortion debate is that the Christian rejection of abortion (which is rooted in the Greek tradition, not in the Bible -- although they incorporated it into Greek (mis)translations) is not the only "religious" approach to the question. Both Jews and Muslims have long and sophisticated histories of debate over abortion, in both cases accepting it under a number of different circumstances. While accepting that early-stage embryos are "alive" in some sense, they are not held to be human until the infusion of the spirit. While the cells of a blastocyst or early-stage embryo are indeed "scientifically" alive, as the Catholic church claims, science cannot tell us when a clump of cells becomes a human being. (Indeed, in nature most fertilized eggs are not destined to implant successfully in the uterus and develop into babies.) The question of when a group of cells gradually differentiating into organs can be deemed a human being, when it can be understood to have a "soul" or an individual identity, is one that science cannot answer -- and to impose by law the answer of one religious community, even if it is the most numerous and powerful community in this country, is a violation of the religious and human rights of those who conscientiously disagree.

The probably context behind Biden's remark is that the morality of abortion and its legality are not the same thing. One can oppose abortion while also opposing laws against it as unworkable and ineffective. A legal ban on abortion would NOT accomplish the justice that Archbishop Donald Wuerl seeks - it would not stop abortion and it would cause harm to mothers. We generally regard adultery as wrong, yet we sensibly refrain from making it illegal.

"If Palin were in charge, though, her daughter would not have had the option to make that decision. The state would have made it for her." This state decides whether shoplifting in a grocery store is stealing even when you're hungry. The state decides how much tax you pay even if you want to help a needy individual with that money. Why is the state not suited to make a decision on abortion?

Yes, Sally Quinn, when can a fetus survive on its own? Two years old? Five years old? 10? I like your position, because the world already has enough children.

Also, can you promise that all the States will make abortion against the law, if that right is returned to a democratic people?

So, basically, Ms. Sally Quinn, I find your arguments very thin, and actually disingenuous. Of course, as a member of the media, that's your job.

What is evil is to make this the dominant issue in our political system rather than working toward the solutions for make abortion rare. We sure have destroyed our economy by electing bad people when we vote only on the abortion issue.

The question to me is not if a fetus is life, certainly an ameoba is life even though it is a one-celled animal it meets all the scientific criteria for life, so then is a fertilized egg. No, the real quest for government, since in this instance government is being asked to legislate the rights of both entities, is when do those divided cells begin to have rights that supercede the rights of the person carrying it? Do cells that divide 10 times as equal as cells that have divided a billion times and could live outside of the mother with limited medical intervention? I think that the already born sensiate person should get the lion share of the right to decide.

My sister was a good catholic had nine children. Number 10 was on the way but she was near a mental breakdown. So adoption would not work else the existing family would break up. So she elected abortion, and I think she was very correct in that.

It's hardly "This just in," as the previous poster crows. Here's an old piece on the precious Lynn Forester d'oh Rothschild, who never supported Obama and said that long ago:

http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/defiant-clinton-women-refuse-support-obama

She's not quite trophy enough for McCain's liking but close enough for government work. And certainly way rich enough.

I told my daughters that life begins at insertion.
This is the crux: Women of means will always have safe access.

Sally Quinn says, "when a fetus ..can survive on its own, then it is a human being" and presumably worthy of protection by the law. Does she then think that humans who cannot survive on their own (e.g., the retarded, the demented, the severely disabled) are not human and not worthy of protection by the law?

I must say I am shocked that Weurl would claim life is a matter of science and that theologically we have a "right" to it. There's no such thing. Life's a gift from God, not a sceintific formula based on crude conceptions of cell division. Why not speak about the gift of God in sharing life with the world forging bonds of love and care among all living creatures? As I suspect the bishops just want you to vote Republican. If they really wanted you to support fertilisation qua life, they'd tell Catholics to oppose the US constitution upon which Roe v Wade is based. That's right, American Catholics, oppose your own democracy if you want communion. Because the courts decided the landmark case, not Democrats or Republicans. I wonder if we'll ever get good bishops again. I sure miss the really good guys from decades ago. These guys are moral and intellectual midgets by comparison. Why don't you tear the heavens open and come down, O God?

Hi Sally: Didn't know which side you were going to come down on for a while. I don't see what all the fuss is about. I believe that no child has ever been aborted: vehicles for children have been aborted. The soul of the child simply finds more suitable parents, ones who want it and can take care of it and love it the way it deserves. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, given the child abuse in so many families, it seems eminently sensible. Don't Christians believe in the soul? Do they really think spiritual beings are limited to their bodies? As someone who has had a near death experience, I can say for sure that your soul--or consciousness, or whatever you want to call it-- does not die with your body. Neither does a baby's.

Anonymous,
I take exception to your statement that non-christians are not moral. Non Christians as well as Christians do lie, cheat and steal. I had a friend one time who was a strong Christian. She was always trading with Christians (hairdressers, nail techs etc) and when they would take advantage of her she would always say to me: "I couldn't believe they would do that - they were strong Christians." My retort would always be: "And that means what? They are human beings."
Perhaps you just don't know the right non christians. There are Atheists and Agnostics at my church. They are some of the kindest, most caring individuals I have ever known. They participate in trying to help their fellow human beings and trying to leave the world a better place than they found it - just because it is the right thing to do - not because any God or Jesus demands it of them.
You must have been terribly hurt by a non christian once in order to be so judgemental and angry. I don't think your Jesus or your God would have liked the statements that you made. What happened to "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"? Are you really without sin? People are people - Christian or non Christian they all make mistakes.

A fertilized ovum is not a person. I am an actual person whose life has been adversely affected by this notion, pushed by 'pro-life' proponents. How? By limiting and vastly slowing down the use of stem cells for research into helping to cure diseases such as the one which I and many others suffer from: Parkinson's. And there are worse ones than mine. I am the 3rd in my family to have to cope with it. Embryonic stem cells are still thought by many medical scientists to hold the greatest potential for success, despite the emergence of other promising cell types. Please think of this matter in a reasonable way, rather than a theoretical one. I do not feel like a theoretical human being.

Legislating for life... Since a no-exceptions law requires a woman to provide "life-support" for the fetus (and cover medical expenses) regardless of her own actions, is the next step no-exceptions laws requiring each citizen to become an organ donor for genetic matches for terminal cases, and pay for it? What about blood donations?

I am very uncomfortable with the idea that the state can force its citizens to become life-support machines in circumstances where the citizen did not take deliberate actions placing the patient at risk.

If the Supreme Court started doing everything the President wanted to do, we'd be all the worse for it. They are independent and once appointed they stay independent. They can't be lobbied. The people are the final decision makers, for what they decide they live with. My belief is that a doctor and patient never need a politician in the room to guide them or decide what should be done.

"And under the doctrine of stare decisis -- "because it was decided" -- one group of justices tends to accept the previous rulings of an earlier group. These traditions are based on the idea that every previous court majority going back more than 200 years has correctly read the Constitution."
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/roe/woodward.html

I read that Obama doesn't believe in doctrine. McCain doesn't stand a chance of getting it overturned. So change is just speculation. He can say, I tried. Can't we all?

This just in.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee's Platform Committee, will endorse John McCain for president on Wednesday, her spokesman tells CNN.

The announcement will take place at a news conference on Capitol Hill, just blocks away from the DNC headquarters. Forester will "campaign and help him through the election," the spokesman said of her plans to help the Republican presidential nominee.

Forester was a major donor for Clinton earning her the title as a Hillraiser for helping to raise at least $100,000 for the New York Democratic senator's failed presidential bid.

The Lady has gone from Hillraiser to Hellraiser in no time at all. Keep raising hell ladies and don't let the guys get you in trouble. Maybe it's the other way around. Good luck.

Here in NC, a woman was just sentenced to 7 years for killing her one-hour old baby:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/100/story/187015.html

As a previous comment suggested, Palin being proud of her daughter's choice was because, given Roe, her daughter had the choice to make the wrong decision and Palin could have done nothing about it. But her daughter did the right thing anyway.

"The fact is that women are going to have abortions no matter what the laws say"

Of course this is true of any law.... there will always be people who break a law. We have laws against murder... people still murder. We have laws against stealing... people still steal. This is not an argument for not passing these laws, but for better enforecement.

There is no doubt that there will be less abortions if it is made illegal. Sure some women will choose illegal abortions but according to CDC, only 39 women died due to illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe. There are 1.3 million abortions every year, almost all of which would be saved if abortion were illegal.

"But there are too many women, who, for a myriad number of reasons are not prepared to be mothers and should not be forced to be. "

Once you are pregnant, you are a mother. Once you are pregnant, you have brought a child into the world. No one is forcing her to reproduce... she already has. The only question is whether she has the right to kill the baby.

Medical science has made it possible to keep very early fetuses alive, regardless of the quality of life. Everyone who is pro choice struggles with the idea of when life begins.
----------
Sometimes the choice is made for the woman by her circumstances.

It is emotionally draining to go through such situation for everyone involved in an abortion decision, but the alternative to bear the child can be more aggravating if it involves degarding health and quality of life of mother or child.

Okay - her stance on abortion is too extreme but I'm a little concerned that she's way over the top . . . nutty . . . as in . . . nutty as a fruit cake.

Is this story true? If so, it needs to be out there.

This is the craziest story yet about Palin and her religion & if it’s true - watch out because the woman is likely to do anything.

It says that Palin believes she won the governorship because a minister from Africa prayed over her. He’s also some kind of witch-hunter . . . I’m sure that there is a joke there somewhere.

Check it out and find out - is this true?

http://2lesbosgoinatit.wordpress.com

Sally,

Non-Christians have "no morals" they only say that they have to get by in life as not to be judged harshly by the public. They lie, cheat, deceive, steal, back-bite, are perverted, gossip, revengeful, cruel, and are the most hateful people that exist.

They are as cold hearted as a human can be, can stand in your face and speak peace, love, and harmony, and all the while they are making war against you. So don’t speak about them as having morals because if there is such a thing as what the world believes is Satan, they are in league with him. They do not know anything about loving unconditionally, compassion, integrity, and sacrificing for what is true, honorable, and sincere. It is no wonder they all believe the same, they all are a like, including you, adulteress!! How do you feel about breaking up someone’s home? I wonder how you can sleep at night!

McCain did not support overturning Roe v Wade until he lost the 2000 primary to George W. It is all about winning.

How many more years are voters going to be fooled by Republican candidates that do nothing after they are elected to stop abortions?

McCain and Palin have made recent generalized (rehearsed) statements about abortion that are open to interpretation.

Ms Quinn says, "McCain and Palin are pro life and committed Christians."

Interesting articles to consider when deciding whether someone is a "committed" Christian or a hypocrite.

Is The Ninth Commandment* A Lesser One?

http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/09/is-the-ninth-commandment-a-les.html

Christians Who Defame: What the Bible Has to Say

http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/09/christians-who-defame-what-the.html

I am old enough to remember the tragic outcomes of "backally abortions." Making abortion illegal means only the wealthy get safe abortions.

How many Americans are actually pro life and how many are pro choice in percentage?

Was there any latest Pew Survey or Gallup Poll done on this?

Does McCain has the numbers that says more Americans are pro life rather than pro choice to make him get behind the people rather than oppose them on their moral choices, and thus, the change in his position on this?

Great points made in the article, but one that's missing is that while many Christians are only focused on the life/death issue for fetuses, many others are focused on the ramifications of policies and institutions that put women in positions where they don't feel they can have a baby. Poverty, job insecurity (especially for women), lack of pre-natal and post-natal healthcare, social stigma about sex (to the point that we're afraid to warn our kids of its risks), and few trustworthy and feasible adoption programs all lead to abortions. If we address these issues, perhaps we can minimize the number of abortions all told. Safe, Legal, and Rare, right?

Hark!

MODERN-MORALiTY (Dynamic Faith) is superior to Any BiBLiCAL-MORALiTY (Static Faith)!

VoTE: Do Not Fix What's Not Broken [i.e., Roe Vs. Wade]. Only Prevent, if possible.

Note: Evangelicals, Catholics... [Judeo-Christs] etc.. want to Vote "NAY" to Abortion or "NO" to Condems, Yet They vote "YEA" To WAR!??

VOTE: "Marriage is Sacred between a real GENT & a real LADY" not between a Mr. & Mr. or Ms & Ms.! Again; Dop not Fix what is not Broken.

PS: Instead Prevent Teenage Kids & Young Adults from Killing Themselves, includes Fatal Car accidents, Suicides (or via Drugs, Alcohol) or campus/school killings.

Note: Anually 50,000 + 'Kids' Die from these Combinations of Social problems mentioned above.

iMPORTANT: Please know that Apocalyptically Speaking, that everytime some GENTLEMAN masterbates (please do not get turned off; or else leave the class pleaze) or Ejaculates while having Protective Sex, that SPERM (Millions at a Time, are each considered Potentiate entitys, so to spaketh.

Please See COMPETiTiON to become HU{MATE again, @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatozoon

Remember: LiFe is a Miracle & never is Birth (contrary to 'Biblical') any kind of or as if be genuine 'SiN' or 'CURSETH' story , nor is Being 'Reincarnated' or being Re-Birthed , (Contrary to 'Gita)' Must stop or end! Please, stop with ye SEXUAL GUiLT Storys!

Ps: SEX is how "WE" [YE] Got Here! In Miracle Stupid, never SiN! Sorry Bubb!

Eeeeeeee Haaaaaaa! HALLALUYA! Praise The Hol{i}-No-Wo-Men! Praise "IT" being iTSELF, in and of Us-ALL!

iNCAMERA (secret) Every body Get's their TURN, to live Again! We, includes our Parents, cometh from many Parents, from Past, (Today) and then Future-Bound again, via the Holy Cosmic ESCHATOLOGiCAL Permutationals POSSiBiLiTIES Phenomonena! Ya Ya!

---
Paid for & Approved by the KHATAN NATiONALis of AMeric for Gridarian-Democracy & Tranf{finite Civilization 2013+

For too long we have let the public debate on this question be controlled by the religious right.

Enough.

The fact is, however you define this collection of cells we call a fetus, it is the mother's responsibility to deal with it -- not the government's.

A true "conservative" would understand that fact, and see the inherent danger of trying to regulate reproduction through law.

But, of course, these zealots are not 'conservative' at all; they simply use the title in order to legitimize their immoral cause.

And why is it, now that we're on the subject, that the conservative concern for children seems to end at birth? They shed crocodile tears for the unborn, but then slash government initiatives for welfare, child care, Head Start and other human service programs (all while supporting the "war" in Iraq to the tune of $10 billion a month)?

I'm just sayin'...

"It was interesting to note Palin's comment on how proud she was of her pregnant daughter's decision to keep her baby. If Palin were in charge, though, her daughter would not have had the option to make that decision. The state would have made it for her."

This is a straw man. We who are pro-life, given today's legal option to murder children in the womb, are proud of all women who choose to defy this evil and unjust law.

"Is it really possible that he changed his position on such an important moral issue simply to get elected President?"

Answer: YES