Skip to main content

Usually I can understand the extreme discourse anytime the argument of abortion comes up.  I understand why both sides feel threatened, misunderstood, and unable to communicate through any other fashion than to protest and scream.  I've taken both times examining both sides of the issue.  My mother is fiercely pro-choice as is my father and my entire family.  In a way, I am also pro-choice; my personal choice is life, I'm a bleedin' heart liberal, and I'm damn proud of it.

So deal with it, there are a lot of people like me.  People like me who think life is beyond the cold and numerical science of biology and chemistry, people who may even believe that God does in fact exist.  Am I a creationist?  Not exactly.  Do I believe the Big Bang is infallible?  Nope.  Do I think there was evolution?  Of course.  Do I think evolution, like science, are laws and wills created by some kind of intelligent design?  Yes.  I see my cousin's artwork, and I know no monkey could ever hope to express themselves in such a way.   I listen to the countless numbers of languages, songs, and poems, and I am mystified at the capabilities of mankind.  I see a flower in mid-bloom, and I know there is a complicated system which allows that to happen.  In short, like most Americans, I believe that God does in fact exist.  Also, like few around here, I am not a big fan of abortion.  In fact, I really despise the practice.

Yes, I am a man.  I'm not trying to trample anyone's freedom.  I consider myself pro-choice first, but personally I am against abortion.  I am even more against its explicit use as a wedge issue, despite the fact that even most Republicans concede that they'll never abolish Roe v. Wade forever.  It's been on the books for too long, it'd cause too much of an uproar and a backlash.  Besides, why would they want to?  They get tens of millions of reliable votes just for that one position, and if it existed no more, their rocky-coalition would be at greater risk of collapse.  Yet whether politicized or not, the issue is there, and the issue deserves to be debated with civility and candor.

Strangely, I probably wouldn't exist if not for abortions.  It's a complicated and undocumented story, so that's really besides the point.  I grew up fully aware of some of the evils out there.  I've known several victims of rape, and I cannot even begin to imagine the torment that must come from having to bare the product of such a disgusting invasion.  The daily reminder that such a child would provide.  The danger some women face when they are warned that going through with the birth could be life-threatening.  The woman who made a mistake by not playing it safe and who is horrified at the idea of raising a child in her present environment.  Indeed, in such circumstances, most Americans would find an abortion to be acceptable.  Perhaps it is.  Is an adoption more acceptable?  I believe so, while also believing that I can't get in some woman's face, wag my finger at her, and tell her to carry the child to term and then give it up if she doesn't want to raise it.  There's a little bit of a burden in that process.

What people fail to understand is that you cannot call someone "a loon" for believing that a fetus is life.  You can't call someone "stupid" for equating abortion with murder.  You simply can't.  If you don't believe me, ask the millions of women who have had abortions, and yes many of the men who stood by their side during the ordeal.  It's a touchy subject, and rightly so.  Mr. Perkins recently released an ad in response to Senator Obama's speech on the responsibilities of father.  Mr. Perkins rightly points out that Senator Obama believes that a father's responsibility begins at conception, that his obligation starts the moment that he does the dirty deed without protection.  Therefore, Mr. Perkins asks a very fair question; if that is Senator Obama's belief, then when does he believe that life begins?

It's not a question that I claim to know.  Senator Obama doesn't claim to know it, either.  It's a question that haunts the pro-choice community.  It's a question that science cannot really seem to answer, for it all depends on how you define "life."  Now, let me explain once again the following;  you can't call someone "stupid" for equating abortions to murder, or to the general practice of abortion(millions a year) to even the Holocaust.  Holocaust victims, including several of my ancestors, were murdered not based on their activities.  Some were- homosexuals were killed for acts of homosexuality.  Communists were killed for acting like Communists.  However, many were killed not for acts but for status; Jews, Roma, and  homosexuals were killed for being who they were.  They were blameless, they committed no act that could be construed as wrong; the pro-life community finds the same to be true about a fetus.

Like with the Reverend Hagee situation, I'm a little insulted when faux outrage is used as a political weapon.  What the Reverend Hagee said was not, in any way, anti-Semitic.  Parsley, however, was different; he advocated the destruction of a religion that includes over a billion members.  Hagee, however, is entirely different.  What he said essentially that God used Hitler was a tool for his divine and all-encompassing will.  Have you ever read the Book of Job?  Ever hear of the theological position that "all is as God wills it?"  I disagree with the position, I disagree that homosexuals were responsible for Katrina, but I also understand religious context.  I also know that Reverend Hagee has single-handedly done more for my Israeli cousins than the vast majority of my fellow Americans.  I enjoy debates and despise ruinous screaming.  Therefore, when I read a diary entitled "LUNACY OF ABORTION, REPRODUCTION", I shake my head.  I get a little agitated at passages such as the following;

Pro-Lifers talk about the "carnage" and "holocaust" when talking about induced abortion, arguing that millions of "babies" are slaughtered every year.  Using the term holocaust is totally out of place in this context.  At the same time millions of Jews and other people were being exterminated in Europe, Nazi Germany was "pro-life."  It was illegal for German women to have an abortion.  Indeed, it was their duty to have as many babies as possible to make soldiers for the Reich.

For many, and once myself included amongst them, the idea of a fetus being the same as a human being was a laughable notion.  However, I knew my twin sisters as a fetus.  We grew up together in there.  I don't remember much, except being kicked, but the same question still comes back;  when did life begin for us?  When do the responsibilities of a parent begin?  I can't claim with any certainty.  Can the pro-life community?  Of course, because their community is rooted through faith and not science.  Despite their lack of scientific grounding in their answer to that question, it's a far stronger answer than any the pro-choice community has been able to offer.

While I am not in favor of overturning Roe V. Wade, I am in strong favor of reducing the number of abortions while maintaining a healthy debate over the topic of abortion.  Anyone who tells me that abortion should be anything other than the last resort are no better than the war hawks(usually also chicken hawks) who think diplomacy should be the last resort.  Reducing abortions is not dependent on restricting abortions, and is indeed a problem partially stemming out of our adolescent population which is already experiencing a dramatic hike in teenage pregnancies.  We, as a society, need to be a little more open to genuine debate and a little more willing to understand the opposing arguments- even if understanding the opposing arguments can be a little threatening to your position.

I'll respond to any questions below.

Originally posted to Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:06 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I am liberal and pro-choice (20+ / 0-)

    but I do believe in some restrictions to abortion.

    I think that we all can get along.

    Obama: "Because We Won... We Have to Win." 6/6/08

    by Drdemocrat on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:07:58 AM PDT

    •  Tipp'd and Recc'd for the big tent (10+ / 0-)

      Politically pro-choice but personally pro-life, is, I think, where most people are really at.

      Kudos to you for raising your voice on this one.

      •  I'm not sure if that's the case... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        homogenius, Pandoras Box, BeninSC, Lujane

        but it's an interesting idea...

        I'm personally and politically pro-choice... I've never had an abortion, and I hope to never need one b/c I recognize the pain and suffering (to myself) that goes along with it... but if it was needed, for whatever personal reason, it would be done.

        -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

        by L0kI on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:31:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Very very difficult issue. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lujane

        My sisters have both been haunted by abortions, in particular the one who later lost her ability to conceive due to unrelated problems.

        My wife and I are pro-life and are happy that we elected to keep our first child, with whom we, umm, got the order wrong.

        However, being pro-life needs to go hand-in-hand with compassion.  The living, even those who make mistakes, the lives we need to care about.

        Young women who have made the "wrong" choice need our compassion as much as the babies we hope to save. Those haunted by regret need support.  Those not haunted at all may need it more.

        Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

        by dinotrac on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:09:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  sheesh (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          homogenius, voila, ffour

          Those not haunted at all may need it more.

          how very self-righteous of you...

          "Lets not run out to meet trouble; it might not be coming to our house." - Something the Dog Said's Grandfather

          by Pandoras Box on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:30:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If ONLY all babies were adopted, I might agree (7+ / 0-)

          However, cute healthy white babies are in high demand. Unhealthy and non-white are often passed over.

          There is no "easy" or "right" answer on abortion. That is why it is best for each woman (family) and the doctor to make a decision, using clergy or whatever other support they deem needed.

          And with a great many of the worlds problems caused (at least in part) by overpopulation, we truly need to figure out how to slow population growth. There are close to 7 billion people on the planet, and at least a billion are starving or living in squalid conditions.

          MC=W^3: McCain=W's 3rd term

          by sd4david on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:13:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Is that so true any more? (0+ / 0-)

            I'm not up on the statistics, so I really don't know.

            I can see the part about healthy.  It takes somebody really special to adopt a baby with special needs.

            As to ethnicity, my anecdotal experience seems different:

            We have friends who are trying to adopt two black foster children, and other friends who have already done so (well, one each).

            Other friends have desperately gone to places like South American, China, and -- I can't remember the other place -- in search of babies.

            I can't believe that my friends and associates are all that special.

            If there's problem that keeps healthy kids from getting adopted, I would more readily believe it is a problem of gatekeepers than demand.

            I could, of course, be wrong.  All I know is anecdotal.

            Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

            by dinotrac on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:02:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Still true (0+ / 0-)

              Certain people go to non-whites because they are "easier" to adopt. The "standards" for potential adoptive parents are less strict for the "less desirable" children.

              And some know they are harder to place, so they want them for that reason.

              MC=W^3: McCain=W's 3rd term

              by sd4david on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:31:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Too bad, (0+ / 0-)

                though one shouldn't disrespect the parents who turn that way.

                Some of the standards are pretty odd, too.

                I've had friends go to Guatemala because they were each over 40 (42?) and local agencies deemed them "too old".

                Seems mighty odd in an age when many people are putting off their families and having their own children at that age.

                At any rate, I agree that every child deserves to be wanted and loved.

                Any and all artificial barriers should be smashed, which is different from saying we shouldn't care who adopts a child.

                Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

                by dinotrac on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:37:17 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Where Are They Adopting From? (0+ / 0-)

              As to ethnicity, my anecdotal experience seems different:

              We have friends who are trying to adopt two black foster children, and other friends who have already done so (well, one each).

              Other friends have desperately gone to places like South American, China, and -- I can't remember the other place -- in search of babies.

              Unfortunately, there's still a big push in the US to adopt out race/ethnic babies within the same race/ethnic group. It's not like it once was, but it still happens.

              Are your friends searching in South America and China for babies only? Within the US, most families want to adopt infants rather than toddlers or older children; so, babies are at a premium, which is why so many will look outside the US. Also, while the US adoption system has made some strides over the past two decades (same-sex couple adoptions, cross-racial adoptions and single-parent adoptions), it's still extremely difficult to adopt; there are a lot fewer restrictions in adopting from other countries.

              •  True enough (0+ / 0-)

                >most families want to adopt infants rather than toddlers or older children;

                Funny how that works, too.

                I've known childless couples hell-bent on adopting an infanct when toddlers were available.

                Having had three or our own, we know what they don't: infants are cute, but over-rated.  Lots of work, limited personalities.  Toddlers are a lot more fun.

                And there's another little problem:

                Paperwork and bureaucracy in some of these places is endless.  Sure, they'll let people adopt who domestic agencies might pass up, but --- man!!  I've had friends face interminable delays with both South American and Chinese adoption.  By the time you get your child, you're not that far from toddlerhood anyway!

                Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

                by dinotrac on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:49:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  YOU'RE NOT PURE ENOUGH (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DawnG, L0kI, zbbrox

    AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    If at first you don't succeed, your name is not Chuck Todd.

    by Larry Madill on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:08:31 AM PDT

  •  well, that's cool, I guess. (6+ / 0-)

    nature isn't pro life though.

    Central PA Kossacks smoke a bowl; we'll be fine! (-2.88, -4.15)

    by terrypinder on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:12:16 AM PDT

    •  Of course nature isn't "pro-life." (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marykk

      Abortions, like all acts that we human beings commit, is a choice.

      "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

      by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:14:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Abortion existed in nature for millions of years (7+ / 0-)

        before human beings ever made a 'choice' affecting one. It will always exist, and no power on earth exists to stop it. It is called 'natural abortion' or 'spontaneous abortion,' and no animal species has ever been free of it, and none ever will be free of it.

        Who created nature? God? If so, then who is responsible for the fact that natural abortion existed from the beginning of time? And who is responsible for the fact that it always will? You tell me.

        "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT

        by BeninSC on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:19:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  (I think he meant (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          L0kI

          induced abortion)

          If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

          by marykk on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:20:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, those who seek to use abortion as a wedge (10+ / 0-)

            issue have tried to convince society to accept the definition of abortion as 'induced abortion.' But that is a limitation of the circumstance, and, further, one most unfriendly to progressive causes, because it allows conservatives to adopt that position in which life begins at conception and ends at birth. They want all of those babies born, then they want NOTHING provided for the lives of those children. No pre-natal health care, no perinatal health care, no health care after birth, no benefits for parents who cannot afford children ... there are many issues very favorable to progressive causes which are undermined by the idea that the only abortions are induced abortions. They are not. Millions of natural abortions could be prevented with quality pre-natal care. Will conservatives support it? Never. They only want societal protections for UNWANTED children, not for wanted ones. That's how you know it is a wedge issue, not a completely sincere one.

            "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT

            by BeninSC on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:25:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  He's not seeking to use it as a wedge issue... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              marykk, BeninSC, Coach Jay

              he's seeking to start a civilized discussion...

              -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

              by L0kI on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:32:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, L0ki, I was not suggesting that sestrak (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                L0kI, ChapiNation386

                was using it as a wedge issue. I was speaking about that just as sestrak was when writing this:

                I am even more against its explicit use as a wedge issue, despite the fact that even most Republicans concede that they'll never abolish Roe v. Wade forever.

                Conservatives use it as a wedge issue, not sestrak.

                "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT

                by BeninSC on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:35:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  In other words (4+ / 0-)

                I was saying that in limiting the definition of abortion, sestrak was buying into the framing of abortion as meaning ONLY abortions made by human choice. I was not saying that sestrak was trying to use it as a wedge issue, I don't think that at all.

                But accepting that framing is not in the interest of progressives. Because that is not what abortion is. It is the premature termination of a pregnancy. Accepting the other framing of it, as sestrak has done, is not in our interest.

                "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT

                by BeninSC on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:41:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  A civilized discussion (7+ / 0-)

                does not begin with using right wing terminology.   "Pro-life" is a political term adopted by the self-labeled "values voters" to falsely give them the moral high ground.  

                As others have pointed out, the opposite of pro-life is pro-death, and I and many others take offense to that implication.  

                •  Okay... but it is the generally accepted (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  marykk

                  terminology... perhaps the diarist doesn't understand the connotation we've discovered with conventional terminology... we can educate him about that... which you've done with your last paragraph...

                  -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

                  by L0kI on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:11:04 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  agreed (5+ / 0-)

              They want all of those babies born, then they want NOTHING provided for the lives of those children.

              which is why call them "pro-birth" instead of "pro-life" people.

              (i also believe that a fertilized egg has POTENTIAL to become a human being.)  

        •  By that same argument.. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          L0kI

          ..murder has always existed.

          If God created nature, then yes, God also created "death."  Yes, God has made "natural abortions" possible.  He also made abortions possible.  Just like murder, theft, adultery, etc.  That doesn't make them right.

          "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

          by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:22:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You made the argument about the 'innocence' (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ChapiNation386, sunshineyellow, ffour

            of the aborted. The being aborted naturally is no less innocent. Why is it fine if God does it? If a human being elects abortion, one fetus dies. With natural abortion, millions upon millions die.

            Are you saying God is a murderer, too? As well as an abortionist? It is not an argument I hear from most 'pro-life' advocates.

            "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT

            by BeninSC on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:32:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Acts of God.. (0+ / 0-)

              ..and acts of Man are two very separate things.  

              "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

              by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:20:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You see: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BeninSC

                You're operating under a fundamental misconception here. You're operating under a top-down authoritarian framework in which God can do things like murder or whatever that we can't. There are at least 1000 violent actions committed by God in the Old Testament and 100 where God tells people to kill others. God on at least two occasions orders the Israelites to commit the crime of genocide; the first occasion was when they committed it against the Cannanites and killed even the babies. And there was another when God chastised Saul for not going far enough and went so far as to take the kingdom away from him.

                Let's face it -- why do you want to follow a God who is that high-handed, that authoritarian, and that vengeful and bloodthirsty? It's like I said -- I am not going to follow a God who is guilty of that sort of thing.

              •  "Acts of God" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BeninSC

                There are many people who cannot even relate to an argument like that because they do not believe in "God"

                I DO believe the sides in this argument are wide apart. I lost a friend a while back when I told her I was pro-choice. She told me I sanctioned murder. There was no going around this. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. And to be honest, but possibly arrogant, I could accept her view - she couldn't accept mine.

                Neither of us want the friendship back. It is a very destructive, huge disagreement.

                •  A huge disagreement, yes. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  anotherCt Dem

                  But not because you made it so, anotherCT Dem. You could accept her view - that says it all, she could not and would never accept yours.

                  He drew a circle that shut me out —
                  Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
                  But Love and I had the wit to win:
                  We drew a circle that took him in.

                  Edwin Markham

                  "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT

                  by BeninSC on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:11:12 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Good point, (0+ / 0-)

                  but "acts of God" can also refer to accidents that are outside of our control.  Disasters, mis-carriages, etc.

                  "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

                  by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 03:15:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Miscarriages don't need to be AS far out of (0+ / 0-)

                    our control as they currently are. There are literally thousands of things which could be done in the way of pre-natal health care and education, including birth control, which would dramatically reduce the incidence of the original and natural form of abortion - miscarriage. Efforts to provide that education and health care are blocked by people who call themselves pro-life. Almost without exception. It doesn't have to be that way.

                    I don't mean to suggest that every natural abortion can be prevented. It certainly cannot be. But the incidence of natural abortion could be dramatically reduced. Do you think conservatives block those efforts because deep down they believe that God intends for those pregnancies to be terminated? Do you believe that is what God intends for them?

                    "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT

                    by BeninSC on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 06:04:49 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  What is the difference to the aborted being? (0+ / 0-)

                I have not discussed this with them, but I can't imagine that an aborted child would be particularly consoled by the fact that the abortion was God's choice, as opposed to a human being's. Isn't death death? Do you think an aborted child is less dead if the abortion is natural? Or do you think God handles the aborted child differently if the abortion was natural as opposed to 'elective?' Is an aborted being less innocent if the abortion was induced as opposed to natural? Does the innocence matter? If not, why did you mention it when you were discussing elective abortion?

                Is the death of a fetus only a bad thing if a human being plays a role in the decision for the abortion? If so, why? Why is it fine if God does it and bad if a human being does it?

                Do you think 'God's will' can be 'realized' through the acts of human beings God influences? If so, can you tell which acts those are? I suspect there are many in this country who feel that George Bush's actions are of that kind, implementation of the will of God. I could not disagree more strongly, and it is one of the things so many of us have fought so passionately all these years. But what if an act of human will was how God chose to effect an abortion? Who could say that did not happen? You, Sestrak?

                Can God read the future? is God all-powerful?

                While on the subject, you contend that murder has always existed. Cain and Abel wasn't the first incidence of murder? Any death in any species is murder, in your view? I just ask because you contended that murder ALWAYS existed. Which would mean it existed before Cain and Abel, yes?

                You said in your diary that you would respond to any questions, below, but I don't get the sense that you really want to do that, even when the commenters in your diary are civil and calm. For example, you ignored the principle question of my comment, above: Why is it fine if God does it?

                You may have a difficult time making your case on this blog if you cannot answer that. But I would appreciate answers to all the other questions, too. Hard questions? I hope so! They should be! That's why the 'abortion debate' is gnarly. Are you afraid of that?

                "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT

                by BeninSC on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:06:17 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  if you're basing your argument on Christianity (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BeninSC

            First, "America is not a Christian nation". That's from a document called the Treaty of Tripoli 1797, unanimously approved by a Senate largely populated by Founding Fathers and signed by John Adams. So the concept that American law should be based on Christian morality is not only a wingnut fallacy, but is something the writers of the Constitution obviously disbelieved.

            Second, the Bible says fetuses are property, not people. Got a Biblical cite that can be twisted to whatever your purpose is?

            If you have a secular argument against abortion, you might as well bring it up now.

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:04:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Congratulations! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mikey

      You just committed the naturalistic fallacy!

      "If America leads a blessed life, then why did God put all of our oil under people who hate us?" -- Jon Stewart. -8.38, -6.67

      by stridergambit on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:37:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You undercut your position... (26+ / 0-)

    The moment you label yourself "pro-life" you dilute the strength of your position because you are adopting the label of the anti-choice movement.

    The term "pro-life" is beyond redemption. I utterly reject its use.

    You also don't go far enough in articulating that you oppose criminalizing abortion. As a man, I feel it necessary to almost always qualify my position as being pro-choice and anti-abortion exactly how I propose to reduce the number of abortions in this country. I believe that the burden is on me to demonstrate that I am not trying to control, dominate, or stigmatize women.

    There is only one proven way to reduce the abortion rate--through widespread availability of contraception and education in its proper us. The largest gglobal study ever conducted was released in the last year and it showed that across cultures, economic strata, and geography this was the only significant factor that makes a difference.

    Using the term "pro-life" puts the onus on you to disassociate yourself from the baggage of the anti-choice movement. They have built a brand on the term "pro-life". Don't be surprised if people are suspicious of your intentions if you adopt it for yourself.

    Well Dayum! The Fat Lady just sang her tits right off!

    by homogenius on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:16:53 AM PDT

  •  the problem isn't Obama's position (9+ / 0-)

    the problem is that dhonig's diary is a blatant distortion, but Team Purity has lost all their critical faculties when it comes to lies directed at the nominee...

    Have you ever voted for a Democratic nominee? Yes? Then you've voted for one more conservative than Obama.

    by Stroszek on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:17:13 AM PDT

  •  Thank you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    L0kI, beatpanda, Setrak

    I understand exactly what you're saying.

    If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

    by marykk on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:18:40 AM PDT

  •  For me it's prochoice/nochoice (11+ / 0-)

    Abolition of a woman’s right to abortion, when and if she wants, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the state.
    -Edward Abbey

    I believe the power of the state should stop at our doors.  If it doesn't stop at our doors, it should at least stop at our bodies.

  •  If you oppose criminalizing abortion, (22+ / 0-)

    you're pro-choice. Your personal feelings on the matter are your personal feelings on the matter. Many people who would never have an abortion (for any number of reasons) oppose criminalization.

    Now, I'm going to be honest and admit that I really don't care much one way or another about reducing the number of abortions, since I don't have a moral dilemma about them. However I would very, very much like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Which would reduce the number of abortions. So, I imagine we have a good deal of common ground to work with there.

    (BTW, the teen birthrate has been steadily declining since the 1950's, save a small uptick in the last two years. The US does have one of the highest teen birth rates in the world though - so there is still plenty of room for improvement)

  •  I understand your position and (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    L0kI, empathy, Pandoras Box, BeninSC

    I am glad you voiced it.  I do not agree, but I am glad to see the diversity of opinion that exists within the democratic party, and among Obama supporters......

    Yes We Can!!

  •  I disagree with many of your assumptions . . . (7+ / 0-)

    . . . but I respect your right to hold a differing position.

    That's why we're Democrats, and not authoritarians.

    Ceux qui peuvent vous faire croire à des absurdités peuvent vous faire commettre des atrocités.

    by Orange County Liberal on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:28:17 AM PDT

  •  Dirty deed? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChapiNation386, Pandoras Box

    that his obligation starts the moment that he does the dirty deed without protection.

    What?  

    http://www.guttmacher.org/...

    . Do most women in the United States use contraceptives?

       * Almost nine in 10 women who are at risk of unintended pregnancy (women who are sexually active, able to become pregnant, and neither pregnant nor trying to become pregnant) are using a contraceptive method. (10)

    "Protection" fails.  For both parties.

    Please articulate the appropriate punishment for people who have unintended pregnancies and then obtain abortions.  And make sure it applies to all parties.

    •  He doesn't believe in punishment... (0+ / 0-)

      he said that... it's not about that, it's about him being allowed to make the choice for himself while we are allowed to make the choice for ourselves.  And that he should be accepted for his belief, whatever it is... especially if he's a bleeding heart like he states... it takes all kinds...

      -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

      by L0kI on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:39:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Abortions declined every year Clinton was prez (11+ / 0-)

    ... You can reduce abortions by teaching safe sex to teenagers, giving them condoms and emphasizing the need for safety first b/c they're going to have sex.

    I'm not sure what I think of the rest of the diary... you present yourself in a respectable way, I happen to disagree with many of the points (like the holocaust analogy), but I understand your personal struggle to define your own beliefs... at least you've examined this.  And I respect your willingness to accept that this is YOUR personal choice, and it should not be thrust on others who don't share your view...

    You can totally be pro-choice and not believe in abortions... that is your choice, but you recognize that others may choose something else.

    -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

    by L0kI on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:30:25 AM PDT

    •  Good point, but.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      empathy

      ..I use my description to emphasize that I really really really don't like abortions, and I don't think anyone else should.  I did so rather inartfully, but then again I'm not really a scholar on this particular subject.

      "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

      by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:35:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I thought you expressed yourself well.. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        empathy, Pandoras Box

        but to be clear, you don't believe in gov't dictating policy surrounding abortion do you??

        -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

        by L0kI on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:41:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ahianne, TracieLynn, L0kI

          I believe there are other ways to reduce abortions.

          "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

          by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:58:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly... and I'm all for them... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dadanation, TracieLynn, empathy

            like improving the economic status of poor women and families, like being open, honest and real with our kids about sex and the consequences, and providing them with contraception options... there are tonnes of ways to reduce abortions... Clinton's phrase I think... "Safe, legal and rare..."

            -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

            by L0kI on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:59:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, the evidence is pretty clear. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              L0kI

              All the things you advocate are very much worth doing and I am 100% in agreement. But ultimately only one thing is proven to reduce the need for abortions--widespread availability of contraception and education in its proper use.

              The other things support that, but contraception and education are the central, essential components.

              The study that came out in the last year was stratlingly clear and it bears repeating until people completely absorb it. Throughout the world, regardless of culture, beliefs, or economics contraception is the only thing that prevents unwanted pregnancies and the need for abortion.

              It is still important to improve the economic status of poor women and families, confront cultural and political barriers, empower women, educate young people about their bodies and their behavioral choices, and many other things. But the key issue is providing contraception and education about its use.

              Well Dayum! The Fat Lady just sang her tits right off!

              by homogenius on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:03:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I fully agree... (0+ / 0-)

                I'm just saying there are ways to avoid abortions that don't include outlawing abortion...

                (we're saying the same thing anyway... :))

                -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

                by L0kI on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 01:33:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  you cannot dictate what others (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ahianne, sunshineyellow

        should and should not like.

        "Lets not run out to meet trouble; it might not be coming to our house." - Something the Dog Said's Grandfather

        by Pandoras Box on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:50:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He's not dictating that, I don't think... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          empathy

          that is just how he feels... I don't think he's trying to press our views on the subject... at least that's my impression...

          Here's an example... I believe everyone should want to provide for the least among us...

          that's my belief... it doesn't mean that sentence has any weight outside of what I said... I don't think it will ever happen that everyone will want to provide for the least among us... I still think they should want to.

          He's entitled to think that other should do X... but if he berates them with his view, then he loses cred...

          -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

          by L0kI on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:58:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not dictating anything. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          L0kI, empathy

          I'm stating my personal perspective.

          "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

          by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:59:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Not pro-life, anti-choice (5+ / 0-)

    if that's what you are, that's what you are, but label yourself correctly.

  •  If you only are against abortions... (16+ / 0-)

    personally for yourself and are not trying to legislate your POV into law then you are pro-choice by definition.

    BTW, I (and most other DKos folks) do not buy into the "pro-life" label for people who are truly call themselves that.  They are pro-forced birth not pro-life as they proclaim.  Many of the same legislators who proclaim they are pro-life are the same ones who could care less about supporting children once they are born and have no problem supporting state sanctioned killing (capital punishment).  

    I would say that most people who are pro-choice are also pro-life, they believe in life, think that it is unfortunate that abortion is needed to be chosen and support healthy, happy and wanted children once they are born as well as good pre-natal care for he mothers.  Many anti-choicers believe that pro-choice = pro-abortion.  While that may be the case with a very small minority of pro-choicers (the ZPG folks for example) most pro-choicers just want it to be a safe, legal and hopefully an increasingly rare option due to better education and access to birth control.

    Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

    by dvogel001 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:33:33 AM PDT

  •  This diary (6+ / 0-)

    sets out your position fairly well and for that I commend you. But it doesn't address the actual problem nor does it offer any solutions. Some of your language I found questionable in a diary supposedly intended to bring understanding, and I suspect those phrases will be pointed out to you in short order.

    "If do correct, no can defense."

    by liberalis on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:34:58 AM PDT

  •  Liberal, Pro-Life (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    churchylafemme

    Yes, I'm short and tall. Also black and white, fat and skinny.

    There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos

    by allmost liberal european on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:35:36 AM PDT

    •  You're making a whole bunch of purist (0+ / 0-)

      comments today aren't ya?

      You gotta find another party honey, we are diverse... deal with it.

      -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

      by L0kI on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:44:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fact are facts (0+ / 0-)

        I'm liberal and pro-slavery.

        There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos

        by allmost liberal european on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:00:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have nothing to say to you... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DAVE DIAL, ChapiNation386

          you've added nothing to all the discussions I've seen you in today.

          -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

          by L0kI on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:09:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What bullshit (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nova Land

          There are plenty of liberals who are personally pro-life but politically pro-choice.

          The reasons for this are personal faith and the fact that there are a lot of us who understand that our faith doesn't, and shouldn't, dictate what others do with their lives.

          That doesn't change what we believe and the fact that the issue has us torn.

          You would do well to realize that the majority of people in America are of some faith or the other and this issue isn't as cut and dry as some 'purist' think. Pushing well meaning people of faith away from the Democratic Party and the progressive movement is a huge mistake.

          McCain: US economic woes 'psychological'

          by DAVE DIAL on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:45:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, your comment is bullshit (0+ / 0-)

            Pushing well meaning people of faith away from the Democratic Party and the progressive movement is a huge mistake.

            Then why not merge with the GOP? If nothing matters anymore, then why even fight?

            There are some things the democratic party has to be able to agree on. What are those issues?

            There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos

            by allmost liberal european on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:48:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wtf? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Nova Land

              Your kind of politics is the reason there is so much hate put into politics.

              Exactly what did I write that would make me not of the Democratic Party and that I should merge with the Republican Party?

              If you had your way, the Democratic Party would be like the Green Party and get about 5% of the vote.

              You people crack me up. Purity trolls are the worse kind. Do you vote in America and are you part of the Democratic Party?

              McCain: US economic woes 'psychological'

              by DAVE DIAL on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:52:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  This is not a purity contest. (4+ / 0-)

              You do not get to tell people that you disagree with that they can go over to the GOP short of obvious GOP talking points. That's not for you to decide -- disagreement does not equal trolling.

              •  So (0+ / 0-)

                What is the limit?

                There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos

                by allmost liberal european on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:01:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I told you what the limits are. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DAVE DIAL

                  People may personally be pro-life, but still support Roe as a matter of public policy. Now, if that diarist had advocated forced pregnancy as the law of the land, then that would have been different.

                  •  Not the only limit (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    sunshineyellow

                    So Roe is a must but Doe v. Bolton is not?

                    And how about other issues?
                    War?
                    Civil rights?
                    Health care?
                    Torture?
                    Death penalty?
                    Gay marriage?

                    What is the limit? What is really worth fighting for?

                    There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos

                    by allmost liberal european on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:09:36 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But: (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      dadanation

                      You're operating under a fundamental misconception here. This is a Democratic blog, with the purpose of electing Democrats to office. This is not an issues-oriented blog. This is a people-powered blog, which means that in order for such a place to succeed, we have to bring in people from a wide variety of perspectives. If you think you're right, then kick their ass. There is no need to run people off this site short of their using Republican talking points or Republican sources of information.

                      •  So you are unwilling to say who/what is.. (0+ / 0-)

                        ..a democrat. Just join the party, no matter what?

                        I suggets you read Molly Ivins and her description of the evangelical invasion of the texas GOP. Do you want that to happen to the democrats?

                        It may be a big tent, but there must be limits.

                        To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing.
                        Elbert Hubbard

                        = the democratic party? I hope not.

                        There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos

                        by allmost liberal european on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:30:18 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It's really simple: (0+ / 0-)

                          Bigots, assholes, and purity trolls are not welcome here. Everyone else is.

                          •  Why not bigots? (0+ / 0-)

                            If Women and gays are not protected, then why should "people of colour" get special attention?

                            There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos

                            by allmost liberal european on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:36:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DAVE DIAL

                            A bigot includes sexists and homophobes as well as racists.

                          •  Not according to Merriam-Webster(perhaps) (0+ / 0-)

                            I checked that one. That's why i asked.

                            a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

                            So, gays may be inluded, but race is the main question.

                            And still, i haven't heard what the criteria is.
                            Is torture acceptable just because nearly 50% of Americans approve it?

                            In the end you have to draw the line. If you are unwilling to draw the line by using poliy positions, then i think his conversation is over.

                            There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos

                            by allmost liberal european on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:49:38 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            allmost liberal european

                            Under that definition, homophobes are included as well. And gays would be regarded as a member of that group as well. And someone who would support torture would fall under the simple asshole rule.

                          •  Grow up (0+ / 0-)

                            Have you read the goals of this website?

                            This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together. We happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Martin Frost and Brad Carson, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Liberal? Yeah, we're around here and we're proud. But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory. And since we haven't gotten any of that from the current crew, we're one more thing: a reform blog. The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions. And as I've said a million times, the status quo is untenable.

                            Got it?

                            Understand?

                            You don't get to decide who is and who is not a Democrat. But WE get to decide who is and who isn't part of this website.

                            And acting like a 'purity troll' is a good way to be shown the door.

                            Go ahead and argue the points, but don't tell people their opinions are not wanted and try to send them off to the Republicans. That is NOT the goal of this site.

                            If you don't like it, too bad. I'm a strong Democrat that not only votes straight (D) but puts my money and time where my mouth is.

                            Your purity test is what's not needed.

                            McCain: US economic woes 'psychological'

                            by DAVE DIAL on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:45:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ? (0+ / 0-)

                            So, what positions are acceptable for a democrat?

                            Using torture?

                            There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos

                            by allmost liberal european on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:46:49 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Quit making up straw man arguments (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dadanation

                            Quit making up straw man arguments, torture has nothing to do with what's being discussed here.

                            McCain: US economic woes 'psychological'

                            by DAVE DIAL on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:50:00 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes it does (0+ / 0-)

                            What do the democrats support? Where is the line, what is acceptable and what it not?

                            Anti-abortion and torure are both issues that enjoy large support from the population. Should you go with the crowd?

                            There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos

                            by allmost liberal european on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:53:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I know one thing (0+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hidden by:
                            allmost liberal european

                            You will never be satisfied with any other answer than the one you already have made your mind up with.

                            So I'm done with you and your stupid fucking purity test.

                            And as my last word to you I say, Fuck off asshole.

                            McCain: US economic woes 'psychological'

                            by DAVE DIAL on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:55:12 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hide rated for "fuck off asshole" (0+ / 0-)

                            There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos

                            by allmost liberal european on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:56:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You might want to rethink that (0+ / 0-)

                            You might want to rethink that, you aren't supposed to HR people who you are in an argument with.

                            I won't report it or retaliate, but just tell you that, oh my. I'm wounded.

                            Not a HR....ohhhh noezzz....

                            heh-heh

                            McCain: US economic woes 'psychological'

                            by DAVE DIAL on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:00:55 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Didn't bother you (0+ / 0-)

                            But you had to reply..

                            And yes, using language like that is worth the hr.

                            There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos

                            by allmost liberal european on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:02:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  U r teh pusrist (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dadanation

                            U r teh purist of Dem Dems.

                            Yea, like I never received an TR/HR before. There will always be some putz that wants to get into some purity battle and HR you, even with Armando over at Talk Left.

                            Let's just say that if Democrats listened to people like you, we will wind up like the Whigs.

                            McCain: US economic woes 'psychological'

                            by DAVE DIAL on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:12:12 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  but if you keep reading that person's posts here (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            homogenius

            you'll see they are not advancing a nuanced or intelligent or respectful position (as opposed to your post here).  it's not lOkI who is pushing people away from the party, it is comments like that one by allmost liberal european that seek to be just plain divisive for divisiveness' sake.

            _______________

            it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

            -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

            by dadanation on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:50:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sure, and that is who my post was (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dadanation

              Sure, and that is who my post was directed at.

              People like "allmost liberal european" do nothing to make things better. They only bitch and try to be as divisive as possible.

              Nobody is pure enough for them.

              McCain: US economic woes 'psychological'

              by DAVE DIAL on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:55:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  my eyes are worse for the computer wear (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DAVE DIAL

                that's why i posted my response to you, thinking that in fact you were replying to that individual -- but as my eye sight is going to hell in a hand basket, i couldn't retrace the link/thread accurately.

                thanks for confirming my hope and for making me feel a little less in need of a visit to my eye doctor.

                _______________

                it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

                -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

                by dadanation on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:49:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sometimes the threads are (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dadanation

                  Sometimes the threads are hard to follow. I have the same problem from time to time.

                  And yea, staring at the computer screen can mess up your eyes and give you a headache.

                  Or at least that's what happens to me sometimes. heh-heh

                  McCain: US economic woes 'psychological'

                  by DAVE DIAL on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:52:19 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  sometimes the headache (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    DAVE DIAL

                    is in direct proportion to number of mind-freezing numb nutz comments like the one which precipitated this exchange of ours.

                    _______________

                    it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

                    -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

                    by dadanation on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:01:56 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  its ok to be pro-life (4+ / 0-)

    for one's self, my only problem is when having made that choice for one's self, it must become the correct choice for every one else.   In that sense pro-choice is pro=life and pro-abortion.

    A bacterium is life, do we afford it protection under the law?

    That's really what distinguishes so many of these arguments between lay people and lawyers, especially one such as Obama who specialized in con law.  When I started law school, the dean of the school did a speech greeting the incoming class and made some promises and predictions.  One of his points was that law school would change us as people.  We would not be the same, we were entering an indoctrination program where we would learn some specific skills, but also a way of examining issues and talking about them.  I think he was largely right.

    People who become lawyers probably already have some personality quirks that draw them to the field.  But law school refines and magnifies them.  I have discussed this with spouses of lawyers, and people who went back to school after years out of college.  Most agree, law school puts out a different person.   And maybe the basic personality plus the schooling creates the group "lawyers" that so many people love to hate.

    Things are fundamentally about policy choices, where does the society place the lines that cannot be crossed, always recognizing that those lines are in some way always arbitrary, admitting of exception, and subject to being moved as society changes.  Law is usually a follower, but at times its a brake.  Only rarely is it the harbinger of change.  Lawyers frequently can admit to all sides of a question, but when they choose a side to defend, the zealot part of the training takes over and they push hard and past what they expect to get.  Contrary, contradictory people, who having been ardent for what seems forever, seem to acquiesce too quickly to, well, didn't see that line coming there, but okay, great line, let me defend it or sometimes just a I don't like it but its now the line.  

    Obama didn't flip on certain things, he had supported the death penalty for child rapists in certain circumstances for years.  He supports abortion but in late term abortion, acknowledges that the better decision maker is the state, and he would allow a state to set the line at physical health and not mental health.  Probably because mental health while just as real is not as easily objectified and quantified, and a judge ruling won't have much to go on in many cases.  Some "mental health" conditions with real physical symptoms are probably going to slide by as physical.  He chose a line that said government at a more local level should decide such difficult issues as it is closer to the people and that choices will be broader and the ballot box more effective in regulating those choices.   Its an odd answer if you are not a lawyer.  As a lawyer you may not agree, but it probably doesn't cause the same angst.  All rights have restrictions.  Just as between fetus and mother, the law currently favors the mother, it recognizes limits on the mother's right in late term abortions.  One ugly continuum where right and wrong blur and the line drawing is inherently arbitrary.

    •  a mother's right to a late - term abortion? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      churchylafemme, Pandoras Box

      actually, it is the physician who makes the determination that carrying the pregnancy to term poses a grave threat to the mother's life.

      we are not discussing how the law "favors" the mother insofar as she is able to legally obtain an elective abortion certainly in the first trimester of pregnancy, less so in the 2nbd and absolutely not at all in the 3rd.

      there is nothing arbitrary about the fact that the "late term abortion" is one of medical necessity that only can be performed if and when a physician makes that specific determination.

      less than one percent of all abortions in the US annually take place after week 24; less than 1.5% take place after week 21.

      the state is not the better arbiter of the decision for medically-necessitated abortions because of the undue risk posed to the mother; physicians are.  

      you seem to be reading a great deal into the obama statement; what he said doe snot contradict roe v wade.  what he said lacked depth and the whole scenario (who asked the question, why, the context, etc.) lacks details.

      that being said, it would be instructive to compare how a mental health professional defines mental distress as opposed to a non-mental hrealth professional.  

      as i do not know the true answer, i can not say that there are or are not specific defineed mental distress conditions that do pose a grave threat to the pregnant woman if she is to carry the pregnancy to term.  sabsent that knowledge, i can't venture much more.

      given the lack of details about the obama interview, i would not go so far as to say that obama has drawn a line between mental health and physical health.  

      the discussion about terminating as pregnancy is best handled between a woman and her physician.

      laws regulating this medical procedure should be made on the bases of valid, evidence-based, clinical data, not on morality or personal convictions or influences.  

      as men have always enjoyed control over their own health and their own bodies, the same opportunity, somewhat now afforded women seems to be far more influenced by the visceral than the empirical.

      and just for the sake of accuracy, life does not begin at conception.

      last i checked, a woman ovulates a living egg.  and  a man ejaculates live sperm.

      the new entity that results from fertilization is the combination of these two LIVING entities.  life doesn't begin at conception, it merely changes form.

      so, to the question as to when life begins?  as viability is the current medical marker in play, that is a reasonable marker. the fetus actually has becvome more than a blastocyst playing out the genetic direrctive in their dna as it grows in the woman's womb.

      _______________

      it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

      -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

      by dadanation on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:09:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  as the physician (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        esquimaux, sunshineyellow

        doesn't have the abortion, we can argue whether his medical opinion is the right, or a precondition to the exercise of the right.  It would seem to me the real right still lies in the mother as it is her right to control her body.  Everything else is part of the 'reasonable restrictions' the state can place on her rights.

        Again your definition of life is still about arguing the meaning of life, not proving that there is a set definition.  If something is alive it has life.  If you want to say there is a definition of human life in medical terms, viabilty, then that is one definition.   Does that mean the law must adopt the medical definition?  No, it means that a policy choice will be made.  It either does or does not adopt that position.  It can explicitly adopt a policy position that it is irrelevant to the decision making process, that viability or not, the mother's right to control her body supercedes the interest of a viable fetus and the fetus can be aborted.  Its a question of how you cast the question, is it strictly moral, strictly science, a mixture, or like pornagraphy before the Supreme Court, escaping words but you know it when you see it.

        The law tends to reflect morality, but as a collective act, it also tends to ignore any individual moral position, once decided, it just is.  The law sometimes favors the known science, but again, it isn't the science.  Its a rule that can be changed, not morality itself.

        •  as the physician however (0+ / 0-)

          that individual is both bound by code and oath and law to use data and fact, not whim or caprice or morality to determine the most appropriate medical intervention -- one that comports to the field's best practices etc.

          and this is where i am now thoroughly confused by your post.

          are you suggesting that the same kind of visceral and subjective ruling about pornography ("i'll know it when i see it") has applicability here?

          you indicate that "morality" influences "law" but that once a law has been established, the influences no longer have relevance or power or sway?

          and equally, i am befuddled by the way you both conflate "scientific fact" and "policy positions" and then set them as being just several of possible options, or even contradictory.

          however...

          i should say that your point about determinative authority (for lack of a better phrase) is actually quite spot-on.  from my perspective we move decidedly away from evidence-based and data-based procedures and activities the further removed the physician and the woman from having control over these "reasonable restrictions."

          _______________

          it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

          -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

          by dadanation on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:20:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  the law in question (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sunshineyellow

            would be a law limiting the right to abortions, and potentially criminalizing abortions not within the scope of the law.

            So in examining the law, the court will look at many things, and will be limited by the issues raised by the parties, so there is no way to predict exactly what will limit the court's opinion.  That's by way of disclaimer.

            Abortion is not a physicians right per se, though since its an invasive medical procedure, one can argue only a physician has a right to perform one because of professional licensing requirements.  But if a woman has no right to an abortion because abortion itself is outlawed, then no physician has a 'right' to perform one.  However, the license is not in and of itself a fundamental constitutional right, but a privilege of the state, but once granted, some greater due process protection may be extended by virtue of property rights accruing to it.

            So the most fundamental right from a constitutional point of view is the woman's right to the abortion as part of the control over her own body.  That is the right protected by Roe v. Wade, not the physician's right to perform an abortion.

            The physician has a medical ethics obligation, and restrictions imposed on his practise of medicine by the state.  That is also not a fundamental right that makes abortion legal or illegal.

            So the late term abortion rules are still about the woman's right.  The trimester rules in the federal cases add restrictions on the fundamental right as the pregnancy progresses.

            The law, as a broad proposition, is passed to embody moral, ethical, scientific reasons and sometimes outright prejudiced and wrong headed reasons, or some combination of those things.

            Once passed, it is the law, a set of rules to enforce behaviors, limit behaviors, punish behaviors, reward behaviors, it is not morality, ethics, science or prejudice in and of itself.  Its just rules, and the rules can always be changed.  We would hope our rules were moral, ethical, fair, free of prejudice, and to the extent they involve science, reflective of accurate scientific thought and principles.  But they are just rules.

            Give me the absolute objective criteria between mental distress and mental illness, when does something stop being distress and become illness.  Is there a bright line test that can be put in to words that when applied to a human being can give an absolute answer that any person reading the rules will agree on?  Or will it be that 8 out of 10 professionals will agree, at least most of the time, based on something that ultimately comes down to experience and judgement and they know it when they see it?  

            •  contrary to what sems to be a (0+ / 0-)

              your self-fulfilling prophecy here:

              Most agree, law school puts out a different person.   And maybe the basic personality plus the schooling creates the group "lawyers" that so many people love to hate.

              i don't love to hate lawyers at all.  law school, if i am not mistaken, trains people how to become lawyers, as medical school does doctors, dental school dentists, veterinary school veterinarians, etc.  all the lawyers in my life remain the same people they were before becoming lawyers.

              and i have tremendous respect and admiration for them (an aunt was in fact a judge on the bench in chicago).

              that being said, it is readily apparent from your subsequent posts to the one i made in reply to your first comment of this thread that this exchange was not intended to move our discussion forward.

              for whatever reason, you have chosen to answer my questions and comments with circumlocution and straw persons.

              feel free to equivocate all you want but i am not playing the game any more.

              sorry but i am no longer willing to indulge you or this gordian knot you want to put into play.

              good day.

              _______________

              it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

              -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

              by dadanation on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 12:39:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I really don't believe (0+ / 0-)

                I have circumvented your points by strawpersons.

                You seem to want me to agree that it is a physicians' rights question. I fundamentally and irrevocably disagree.

                It is also only your opinion that questions on abortion should be left only to the definitions of medical science.

                I sincerely disagree.  More important, I don't think people on all sides of the question agree that it is merely a matter of implementing best medical judgement or the state of medical science.  On the prolife side they will argue religion, morality, and life begins at conception, not viability.  Some prochoice will argue it is viability, or that it doesn't matter, absolute right to an abortion at any time.

                I simply fail to see why you think this is a game, it is the essence of the philosophy of what is law, why do we have laws, what should we consider when we adopt laws, where does theory and practice part ways, etc.

                As for the question of changing people, you are free to have that opinion, and since this is the first time you have raised it, I can hardly have responded to that before, so any issues you have with me over that are of your own making in your own mind, not what I have argued with you over.

  •  i dont think there is anything wrong with (0+ / 0-)

    your position.  i am pro choice but that is the one position that my conscience makes me revisit most frequently.  any liberal who doesnt wrestle with this issue scares me.

  •  My large response (5+ / 0-)

    I respect your position and affirm that it is one of the strongest pro-life positions exhibited at Daily Kos that I have seen (at least from a poster who describes himself as "liberal").  But I will still respond to your diary to points as I read them in order:

    First, I strongly reject your notion that science (you stated biology and chemistry) is "cold and numerical", from which I pick up a negative connotation associated with the above fields.  As a budding scientist (senior undergraduate student of molecular biology and biochemistry, intending to get doctorate in one of the two fields) I find that quite insulting, and I don't get offended at much stuff really ever.

    I suspect your career has nothing to do with and will never have anything to do with science.  I suspect from your deep frowning upon science that you never really liked the subject throughout your studies as a student (whether that be in the close or far past).  But what I, and any aspiring and professional scientist can tell you, is that science truly is beautiful.

    First, within the field of mathematics, there's Euler's Identity, which asserts that e^i(pi) + 1 = 0.  Now, you may not be familiar with such constants and terminology, but it the most laymen's term, for a equation that involves two transcendental numbers (e and pi) and the imaginary number i to equal an integer is, as perhaps the greatest mathematician ever in Leonard Euler put, "The most beautiful formula in the world."  As stated from another mathematics professor, "Stanford mathematics professor Keith Devlin says, "Like a Shakespearean sonnet that captures the very essence of love, or a painting that brings out the beauty of the human form that is far more than just skin deep, Euler's equation reaches down into the very depths of existence."

    That is strictly mathematics, but I can assure you that science is beautiful as well.  The fact that a protein must be an EXACT shape to catalyze a chemical reaction, that conditions of maximum effectiveness of a human protein are those found within our human body (temperature, pH, salinity, etc.)  To me, such occurrences are surely not simply "cold and numerical".

    You then write:

    I see my cousin's artwork, and I know no monkey could ever hope to express themselves in such a way.  

    How can you be so sure you will never see it, or more strongly worded in favor of science and proof, how can you be so sure that such an event will never happen in any timespan?

    And lastly, quite frankly scientists aren't in the business of determining when parental responsibilities begin.

    "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world" - Archimedes

    by mconvente on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:44:21 AM PDT

    •  Well then.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mconvente

      First, I strongly reject your notion that science (you stated biology and chemistry) is "cold and numerical", from which I pick up a negative connotation associated with the above fields.  As a budding scientist (senior undergraduate student of molecular biology and biochemistry, intending to get doctorate in one of the two fields) I find that quite insulting, and I don't get offended at much stuff really ever.

      Do numerical values and equations warm you up?  Science IS remarkable.  I never said it isn't, I referred to the more numerical aspects as "cold" because, quite frankly, they are.  The method of numerical values in the scope of a chaotic environment is truly interesting, but numerical values themselves are not really the beauty of science.  I'm sorry if you were offended or if I was less than artful in my description.

      I suspect your career has nothing to do with and will never have anything to do with science.  I suspect from your deep frowning upon science that you never really liked the subject throughout your studies as a student (whether that be in the close or far past).  But what I, and any aspiring and professional scientist can tell you, is that science truly is beautiful.

      You're a scientist, not a detective.  Again, I tried to make clear that I find a beauty in the natural world, which yes does include science.  I again apologize if my wording was less than artful, and I am sorry that you were so offended.

      "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

      by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:50:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think your wording is so inartful (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dadanation, churchylafemme

        that it may distort your actual position, which is a lot more moderate than the words you use to describe it.

        You are pro-choice, but describe yourself as pro-life.

      •  I guess we just disagree (4+ / 0-)

        To me I don't find the numerical aspects of science cold whatsoever.  In fact, without the numerical backbone of science, well, then there would be no science.  All those wonderful articles about medicines curing/treating diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, even your basic aspirin for headaches - the proof of the science's effectiveness is numerically based.  A researcher needs to statistically demonstrate that a certain drug significantly (I use that as a scientific term, i.e. p-values).  Yes, the mechanism of an organic drug is not per se numerically based, but the demonstration of it as effective most certainly is.

        And yes, I do create a contrast between science and mathematics, but for mathematicians their entire basis of existence in their academic fields is to find intricacies of formulas, often of an extremely complex nature.

        I guess I'll explain more about Euler's Identity and why it's so beautiful.  I mentioned transcendental numbers, which are by definition, numbers that cannot be the solution to a polynomial (like x^2 = 4).  They are irrational, which means they cannot be formed by the fraction of two integers, but are still real numbers, i.e. present on a number line.  So, additionally, adding, multiplying, dividing, or subtracting real numbers from transcendental ones does not make a number suddenly real - that is pi - 2 is still transcendental.  So for a formula to combine two transcendental numbers and an imaginary one (being "i") and come out with a real, rational integer, is what I and mathematicians do indeed find beautiful.

        So you're not going to convince me otherwise.

        "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world" - Archimedes

        by mconvente on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:02:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I personall am pro-life but support a (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DAVE DIAL

    woman's right to get an abortion at any time up until about six months. When the fetus can live outside the womb is the point where I would prohibit elective abortions. After about six months the only abortions that I would support are cases where the baby is heavily deformed, has a problem incompatible with life outside the womb (like not having a heart or brain or missing some other massive organ), or where the mother's life is in danger.

    What I often bristle act is how some of the more militant pro-life activists often refer to unborn babies as "a clump of cells" or "blastocysts". They try to act like it is just another nonchalant medical procedure. That is hard for me to understand.

    •  This happens to be a sliding scale... (0+ / 0-)

      As technology improves, we're able to offer survival techniques to younger and younger fetuses... What happens when we can grow a baby in a machine from a zygote?  

      A friend just had a baby that is so far surviving at 25 weeks... the baby is 1.9lbs.... that is remarkable, but I'm not sure you can define your position based on when we can use all the technology possible to keep a fetus alive outside the womb...

      And those are the technical terms for a developing fetus at different stages on development (well not "a clump of cells"), but blastocyst is apt and appropriate... that is what it's called.  If you come at this from a moral/religious perspective it's easy to define where life begins, if you come at it from science (which is arguably more accurate), you can't define when "life" begins... how far back to you go... is a sperm life?

      -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

      by L0kI on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:50:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And it isn't just abortion (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sunshineyellow

        Science is advancing faster than we can have reasoned debate about the ethics and morality of each new discovery. It's part and parcel of the anti-science attitudes that grip the nation.

        "If do correct, no can defense."

        by liberalis on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:59:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I'm a scientist and totally pro-science (3+ / 0-)

          but I do worry about what we're learning to create these days... I don't think our emotional/compassionate evolution has kept up with our intellectual evolution... so much of what can be created now could destroy everything, almost instantly... it's scary... (like that particle accelerator that can destroy the planet if it misfires ever so slightly - scary)...

          I don't know, I just think our technological development is outpacing our ability to deal with the moral/ethical complications that relate to it...

          I don't think that makes me anti-science, I think that makes me "humans are fucking flawed, lets be careful"...

          -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

          by L0kI on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:03:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  That is a point of the debate that will get murky (0+ / 0-)

        But I think that six months is a reasonable cut-off. I once worked at an OB/GYN as a file clerk. Most medical tests for deformities can be done before six weeks.

        I understand that the term "blastocyst" is a technical term, but I've seen used by more militant pro-life activists to diminish what an unborn fetus really is. Again, though, I don't have a problem with a termination in the early stages of pregnancy.

        As for your friend, did she have a boy or girl? How is the baby doing? Is its condition severe? I hope that your friend has great insurance.

        •  I'm Canadian, but she's american, she lives (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pandoras Box

          in Washinton, I'm not sure about her insurance.

          The baby is a girl, named Hope.  The mother had leukemia twice and has been cancer free for 20 years, but they believed she would be sterile b/c of the chemo/radiation, so they didn't use protection.  So, miraculously, she got pregnant, but had all kinds of complications throughout, and was forced to deliver at 25 weeks, which I believe, is right on the cusp of viability... They baby is so far doing well, she has something like an 80% chance of survival now, which is pretty good for 25 weeks.

          Unfortunately, they've noticed some scary lesions on the mother's liver and kidneys and they're worried the leukemia has returned.  So, lets all hope mama and baby are healthy and safe.

          Thanks for asking...

          -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

          by L0kI on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:08:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  interstingly, after week 24 (4+ / 0-)

        only 0.08% of all abortions in the US take place, 24 weeks being for some states and 21 weeks for others the (perhaps) arbitrary (often "viability" defined) line where elective abortions are no longer legal.

        _______________

        it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

        -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

        by dadanation on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:18:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  See, I didn't know that... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dadanation, BeninSC, sunshineyellow

          why don't we (pro-choicers) focus on that when debating the others... (I guess they'd cry about anything from conception on), but they use this partial-birth abortion and late term abortions things to bolster their base... we should make it clear that it's exceedingly rare to have a late term abortion... and how many of those are b/c of developmental problems with the baby or a health threat to the mother...

          how many elective abortions take place after that point?? no one focuses on that...

          -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

          by L0kI on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:21:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  sadly, the pro-choice movement has been (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            L0kI, esquimaux, Pandoras Box, BeninSC

            the pro-choice movement has been trying to have the facts have gravity in this discussion, but for some reason, the facts are always the first thing that gets thrown to the wind when the discussion gets going.

            what was one of the more appalling points of the SCOTUS decision last year was that they memorialized an artifice and then proscribed and ruled OUT a medically-necessary and often times what would be the best medical practice for this life-saving procedure (you know, the ones that pose that grave and legitimate risk).

            the data be damned, too often the abortion discussion, like the one of queer rights, has one side using "morality" as a shield against facts.

            _______________

            it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

            -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

            by dadanation on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:37:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Hagee is scary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dadanation, liberalis

    I heard him preach once and was freaked out.

    •  Yeah, but.. (0+ / 0-)

      ..asserting that he was in someway anti-Semitic is ridiculous.  I'm not accusing you personally of anything, but we both know it happened here a lot.

      "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

      by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:51:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not ridiculous at all (2+ / 0-)

        Hagee is blatantly anti-semitic.  

        •  Hagee has done more for Israel.. (0+ / 0-)

          ..than most Israelis.  That's blatantly false.  He's not anti-Semitic.  He believes in "all if as God wills it", he believes that everything is controlled by God within the framework of some master plan, and his view that Hitler was used to drive the Jews back to Israeli is NOT anti-Semitic, it does NOT claim that God wanted the Jews to convert(which many other evangelical pastors once claimed).

          "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

          by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:10:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you are aware of the disconnect in JOb (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pandoras Box

            aren't you?

            that it is part of the official bible is quite "challenging."

            but to your other point about haggee not being anti-semitifc, you are really being either intentionally obfuscatory here or unaware of the whole of the hagee drama.

            hagee said that god sent the nice guy first, to try to get the jews to come back and be together and all that happy hooha.  but since the jews did not listen to the nice guy, god then sent the bad guy to punish the jews for not listening to the nice guys.

            that punisher?  hitler.

            apart from the incredible insensitivity to the holocaust victims and survivors, then how in the hell does hagee explain the nazi extermination of all of non-jewish homosexuals?  non-jewish gypsys?  non-jewish developmentally disabled? etc.

            hagee can't parse his way out of how homophobic and antisemitic his preachings were and remain. because the hitler shit was not the first or last time hagee has brayed his antisemitism-drenched preaching.

            so please, defending hagee is really not just bad form it is itself indefensible.

            _______________

            it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

            -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

            by dadanation on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:25:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  He's full of praise for Hitler (2+ / 0-)

            saying Hitler was fulfilling God's will.

            You can be pro-Israel and anti-Semitic at the same time.   I'd equate Hagee's views on Jews to those of people who think Blacks should all "go home" to Africa.

            They're racist, he's an anti-semite

            •  Joe Kennedy praised Hitler more than Hagee did. (0+ / 0-)

              Hate to rain on your parade, but Hagee never praised Hitler.  He said God sent Hitler.  That doesn't mean God thought highly of Hitler, it doesn't mean that Hagee thought Hitler was a good chap.  God "sends" everyone because God(in this belief) controls all for the purpose of a master plan, which included the return of the Jews to Zion.  If Hagee went before a public audience(other than a church) and said those things, that'd be a little different.  He didn't.  This was to his fellow evangelicals, and it only went beyond them when people dragged it out into the public square.  I didn't agree with his comments about New Orleans because he said them to NPR(and because he blamed homosexuality instead of the obvious culprit, global warming brought on by the sins of Sloth and Greed and Gluttony).  Parsley was different because he advocated the annihilation of a world-wide religion.

              "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

              by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:44:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I see (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dadanation

                He said God sent Hitler.  That doesn't mean God thought highly of Hitler

                Therefore He sent Hitler because he was aware Hitler would do bad things?

                Then one might be safe in presuming that God didn't love all his children, wouldn't one, coathanger boy?

                Not that I accept any of your loony presumptions, because I don't.  Why not get bent?

                Yours sincerely, TruthOfAngels

                I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper. I am a Democrat.
                Even if this ol' limey can never vote Democratic, I am a Democrat still.

                by TruthOfAngels on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:48:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  OK. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dadanation, Pandoras Box

                So, God is capricious and arbitrary and he is not all-good, seeing that he would murder six million Jews as part of his divine plan. If that's Heaven, I'm not going.

                •  Thank you. (0+ / 0-)

                  Tomorrow, I'll write a more artful piece dedicated to a full-throated defense of Reverend Hagee.  I appreciate your opinion, as it was rather polite(especially next to several other comments).

                  "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

                  by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:18:03 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Well, if God does everything (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dadanation

                then God also made me write that post, and you write yours.  And everything.

                And then Hagee bringing up God sending Hitler, in any context, is either praise for Hitler or meaningless tripe.  

              •  bigotry within the walls of a church (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pandoras Box

                is not given special dispensation.

                why would you however give hagee's antisemitism a free ride?  because he was speaking to other evangelicals in a religious building?

                and you have yet to address the logical flaw in your hagee apologia, namely the homos, the gypsys, the developmentally disabled, etc.

                what abut god's master plan for us?

                who was the good guy god sent us?  for the jews, hagee says it was who, hertzl, right?

                for the developmentally disabled that hitler slaughtered, whom did god send to warn them?:

                whom did god send to warn the dykes and the fags and the bisexuals?

                WHOM????

                _______________

                it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

                -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

                by dadanation on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:54:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Here's the reality that crates abortion (6+ / 0-)

    Women do not have abortions because abortions are legal.  They have abortions because the price of bearing another child is too steep.  How steep?  Abortions sometimes save the life of children in this crummy world where the price of another child can be a death in the family. While not every abortion is predicated on such fears I suspect most are.  Young mothers may not be in dire poverty at any given moment but they know the terrible consequences that can occur on one los job - which can happen the next time a child needs them for a work hour.

    Poor kids die every day from preventable diseases. Those diseases are often created by malnutrition.  Food benefits can be cut off on the whim of a beuracrat sniffing over inadequate job seeking from a mother trying to care for infants and toddlers. There is no guarantee of housing anymore at all after a very short number of years for poor mothers raising children.  Parents with kids get turned aaway from homelsss shelters every day in this country.   Employers often make it unofficial policy to dismiss pregnat women on any legal pre-text.

    Poor women who have another baby in the face of these realities often lose a child to give birth to another.  The only way to reduce abortion greatly is  making the toughest parents life (the single mother living in poverty) one secure enough so that having one child doesn't end up causing another to die.  Beyond that we will have to make such women's lives much more secure to further reduce the abortion rate.

    The most important and hardest job is ending job discriminaion against pregnant women, mothers and those in common  child bearing years.  But we must also make a real security net for familes again.  

    We won't value life again until we value it across the board.  The lives of youngsters is far too precious to allow wars like Iraq.  The lives of the innocent  are devalued every time we callously sacrifice life.  Even if the sacrifice is of the more ugly among us.  Until we value all life there will be a way to abort more children than you will know should we make abortion illegal again.  Only when an anti-abortion law becomes mostly unnecessary will we end those haunting operations that today seem necessary for the living.    

    "Obama. He's redefining what a politician is... take the best from the past, leave the worst back there and go forward into the future " Bob Dylan

    by SmithsLastWord on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:48:01 AM PDT

    •  Brilliant response, thank you.(n/t) (0+ / 0-)

      "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

      by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:52:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  come again? (0+ / 0-)

      are you saying what i think you are saying  here?

      Only when an anti-abortion law becomes mostly unnecessary will we end those haunting operations that today seem necessary for the living.    

      please tell me this is a swiftian response and not meant in al seriousness.

      _______________

      it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

      -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

      by dadanation on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:26:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  so, no clarification from you. why is that? (0+ / 0-)

      i am trying really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but your non-answer is slowly taking the form of your answer.

      _______________

      it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

      -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

      by dadanation on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:00:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just a little story. (7+ / 0-)

    Ayelet Waldman--normally not my favorite writer--made a big impression on me, in a piece she did for Salon.com, regarding her decision to abort a fetus she and her husband conceived on purpose. The boy she was carrying turned out to have markers for severe birth defects. The opening sentences of the article were very similar to the following:

    "I made the heartwrenching decision to KILL my BABY. I have no regrets..."

    (Emphases 100% mine.)

    Waldman's language highlights the absurdity of anyone deciding for anyone else, about a pregnancy.

    Any reason a woman has for ending a pregnancy, is good enough for me. Any reason at all.

    •  What if.. (0+ / 0-)

      ..it's her third abortion outside of extreme circumstances?  Wouldn't you start hesitating in your stead-fast support?

      "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

      by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:53:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  do you think a woman like that (6+ / 0-)

        SHOULD be forced trusted to raise a child?  A child she doesnt even want?

        "Lets not run out to meet trouble; it might not be coming to our house." - Something the Dog Said's Grandfather

        by Pandoras Box on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:58:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  EXCELLENT point! (0+ / 0-)

          This is where we consider an adoption.

          "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

          by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:11:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  oh - of course! No consequences (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            churchylafemme, sunshineyellow

            there at all.   /snark

            "Lets not run out to meet trouble; it might not be coming to our house." - Something the Dog Said's Grandfather

            by Pandoras Box on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:18:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Excuse me? (0+ / 0-)

              Timeline;
              You ask if I think a woman "like that" should be forced, let alone trusted, to raise a child that she doesn't even want.  I say, "great point!  Why not an adoption?"  Then I get a snarky little reply?  I'm sorry, did I miss something?

              "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

              by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:33:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually: (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pandoras Box, karmsy, sunshineyellow

                Hardly any women choose adoptions, and here are some of the reasons:

                There are no recent Canadian statistics, but in 1989, only 2% of single pregnant women under age 25 gave up their babies for adoption (compared to 5% in 1981), with 60% raising the child and 38% opting for an abortion.1 Abortion became easier to access in 1988, so it’s possible that the percentage of women opting for adoption today has decreased even more since 1989. When abortion services are legally available, most women who cannot or do not want to have children will choose abortion over adoption. In the United States, an estimated 4% of non-marital births result in adoption, and there are about 20 abortions for every baby given up for adoption.2

                There are numerous important reasons a woman would prefer abortion or raising the child herself, over giving it up for adoption.

                First, she avoids gestation and childbirth, as well as reproduction itself. Every pregnancy taken to term and the resulting childbirth carry medical risks – far greater than an early abortion. Pregnancy has a profound effect on a woman’s body and emotional state. It affects women’s health, compromises bodily integrity, and alters the course of their life by making their work and other daily activities more difficult or complicated. Childbirth itself can be a dreaded and painful ordeal, especially when a woman plans to give up the child. Further, continuing a pregnancy means producing a child. Regardless of whether it’s adopted or not, some women simply do not want to reproduce. Women have a right to control their fertility, and limit and plan their families.

                Second, up to a third of all abortions are undertaken by married women, and over 60% of women who have abortions already have at least one child.3 It can be much more difficult for a married woman or woman with children to give up a child for adoption, both psychologically and logistically. Further, women may not want others to know they became pregnant accidentally, or that they plan to give up the baby for adoption. By continuing the pregnancy, it soon becomes apparent to everyone, and they would also be subject to the stigma attached to giving up their child.

                Third, while an abortion can be a difficult decision for many women, it can be considerably more difficult for many women to give up a child they have carried in their bodies for nine months, and may have bonded with to some degree. As well, the longer a woman waits to decide what to do about a pregnancy, the more attached she may become to her fetus, making it less likely for her to choose adoption. Further, many more women today choose (or feel pressured) to raise the child because of the reduced stigma attached to single motherhood, although the difficulty to survive as a single mother has not changed.

                Fourth, even if a woman has the mental and emotional strength to relinquish a child at birth, women who choose adoption may spend their lives wondering what became of their child, how it is doing, or fearing being approached unexpectedly about a child they gave up decades previously. One cannot be sure that a child given up for adoption will be safe and provided for, or that it will forever stay out of one’s life, as some women prefer. This uncertainty and wondering can be a source of ongoing emotional difficulty for many women.

                Fifth, interviews with many women have demonstrated that they often have a gut feeling that adoption amounts to an abandonment of a child.4 This may stem from societal pressures of mothering. Women feel responsibility to the fetus they carry, reasoning that "good mothers" simply don’t consign their children to an unknown and uncertain fate. Adoption can feel like an irresponsible choice to many women, and they may feel the fetus is better off being aborted before it becomes a child.

                In sum, there are a wide range of reasons why women rarely choose adoption. Married women and women with children constitute the majority of women facing unintended pregnancies, and adoption is not a realistic option for most of them. The rest generally prefer to raise the child themselves or have an abortion, because of the emotional difficulty of going through pregnancy and childbirth only to relinquish the child to an uncertain future.

              •  you implied the "woman like that" (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dadanation, karmsy, sunshineyellow

                idea...a woman who has had multiple abortions on what you would perceive as a whim.

                The scenario you painted is that here is a woman who has had multiple abortions - a situation you don't approve of.  Now, instead of allowing an abortion you think she should be convinced to have the baby and give it up for adoption.  

                You haven't even addressed the issue of the great risk that pregnancy poses for all women, let alone the emotional consequences of going through the medical trauma and then giving up the resulting child for adoption - an act that - even for those who wished to do so - has real life-long consequence.

                "Lets not run out to meet trouble; it might not be coming to our house." - Something the Dog Said's Grandfather

                by Pandoras Box on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:56:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  What if (8+ / 0-)

        you stay out of a family's decision?  

        You start wrapping restrictions around personal medical decisions and you send some of these families--already wrestling with a terrible situation--into a court system that they don't need to be dealing with.  

        It is none of your business.

        •  I'm not for government interference, (0+ / 0-)

          I'm for moral interference.

          "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

          by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:10:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your morals are superior. Okay. (6+ / 0-)

            Please tell me what that means.  How would you morally interfere with a family's decision?  

            •  You're putting words into my mouth. (0+ / 0-)

              Or my keyboard, as the case may be.  At any rate, my use of the phrase "moral interference" does not necessarily mean "outside moral interference."

              "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

              by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:29:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  oh that'll be fun! (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TracieLynn, MA Liberal, esquimaux

            like the Taliban, right?  The morality police!  

            The Handmaid's Tale, anyone?

            "Lets not run out to meet trouble; it might not be coming to our house." - Something the Dog Said's Grandfather

            by Pandoras Box on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:25:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ugh. (0+ / 0-)

              I never meant "outside moral interference."  I've already spoken out against government interference on this matter.  Therefore, on this particular cause, I give up what is already lost.

              "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

              by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:30:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  then what do you mean (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                esquimaux

                by "moral interference"

                interference implies FORCE

                "Lets not run out to meet trouble; it might not be coming to our house." - Something the Dog Said's Grandfather

                by Pandoras Box on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:33:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  From within. (0+ / 0-)

                  OK, I'm inartful, so f'ing sue me.

                  "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

                  by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:34:29 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  how do you expect to achieve (0+ / 0-)

                    "moral interference" from within?  I am guessing what you mean is that you think that everyone should believe as you do (I don't know WHY you believe it, if it's religious, or it springs from some other source).  

                    What do you propose...how do you expect to achieve this result?  I am asking a genuine question here.  

                    "Lets not run out to meet trouble; it might not be coming to our house." - Something the Dog Said's Grandfather

                    by Pandoras Box on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:39:09 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  OK, this is what I tried to say; (0+ / 0-)

                      Moral interference should be seen as the moral dilemma that millions of women face before and after the procedure.  This is in the context of mem from somerville saying;

                      What if (4+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                         Pandoras Box

                      you stay out of a family's decision?  

                      You start wrapping restrictions around personal medical decisions and you send some of these families--already wrestling with a terrible situation--into a court system that they don't need to be dealing with.  

                      It is none of your business.

                      My response was;

                      I'm not for government interference, (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm for moral interference.

                      This, in turn, led to my suggestion being spun into a suggestion for a Taliban or Iranian-like morality police(despite my comment about government lacking a place in this equation).  I'm not for governmental responsibility(restricting abortions), I'm for personal responsibility.  We reduced abortions under the Clinton administration because kids knew what was safe and what was not safe.  Since that has all been rolled back, we have seen teenage pregnancy, and yes abortions rise over the years.

                      "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

                      by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:52:41 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  so you're saying we should increase (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        dadanation

                        sex education and birth control availability?

                        If that's what you're saying, i can't imagine anyone here being against such programs.  Is that the moral interference to which you are referring?  If so, great.

                        "Lets not run out to meet trouble; it might not be coming to our house." - Something the Dog Said's Grandfather

                        by Pandoras Box on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:01:29 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well, not quite.. (0+ / 0-)

                          ..moral interference would be better instilled through educational programs(formal AND especially informal), which typical sex ed only covers to a certain extent(formal).  I think a woman's best friend is a sister, a cousin, an aunt, someone close but not a parent/guardian that they can talk frankly with.

                          I think there are too many people who rush into abortions and only start deliberating the procedure after the fact, when they feel guilty/depressed over it.  But, as a man, I've never been in that position first-hand.

                          "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

                          by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:07:23 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  lacking data (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pandoras Box, sunshineyellow

                            I think there are too many people who rush into abortions and only start deliberating the procedure after the fact, when they feel guilty/depressed over it.  But, as a man, I've never been in that position first-hand.

                            lacking data you just assert this to be true.

                            again, your bias is showing.

                            _______________

                            it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

                            -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

                            by dadanation on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:12:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Who has been telling you this: (3+ / 0-)

                            I think there are too many people who rush into abortions and only start deliberating the procedure after the fact, when they feel guilty/depressed over it.  But, as a man, I've never been in that position first-hand.

                            The problem is, I have no idea where you are getting these claims from.

                          •  Here is where your prejudice is showing (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dadanation, sunshineyellow

                            lacking data, you assume that women make rash, immature decisions about abortion.

                            "Lets not run out to meet trouble; it might not be coming to our house." - Something the Dog Said's Grandfather

                            by Pandoras Box on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:25:15 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Now you're just acting like a victim. (0+ / 0-)

                            Go ahead, take that and construct it to look like "another misogynyst comment" from myself.  It's not.  If I say a woman makes a rash or immature decision about abortion, it's sexist?  Seriously?  That's just laughable.  I did not generalize and say all do.  I did not say women going to have abortions are just rash, immature, emotional, etc. etc. etc. etc.  I'm sorry if you feel that is what I implied.

                            "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

                            by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:32:21 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Of course. (0+ / 0-)

                            All families are perfectly structured to offer this. There's always a close female perfectly trained and available to handle the questions.

                            Because all families are fully functional.  Who ever heard of a dysfunctional family.  

                      •  Ah, you want the old favorite (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        sunshineyellow

                        the guilt trip!  Because your moral clarity covers all possible situations, you think the guilt trip is the way to go.  

                        Nice.  

                        Because women don't feel bad enough about unintended pregnancies.  Stigma!  Guilt!  Shame!  The trifecta of the morally superior.  

      •  what if a woman has had (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pandoras Box, sunshineyellow

        three spontaneous abortions?

        should she be punished for an abortion of a fetus "outside of extreme circumstances?"

        you are aware of the percentages of pregnancies that are spontaneously aborted, aren't you?

        the data -- the data -- what do the data say are the reasons women seek elective abortions?

        convenience?

        your well-written diary is unraveling the more you comment.

        your bias, not your equanimity, is beginning to show.

        _______________

        it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

        -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

        by dadanation on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:29:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My bias against whom? (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not advocating that anyone be punished for anything.

          "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

          by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:31:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  then someone else jumped your screen name (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pandoras Box, sunshineyellow

            and posted this:

            What if..

            ..it's her third abortion outside of extreme circumstances?  Wouldn't you start hesitating in your stead-fast support?

            i would quote woody allen's famous skit about cheese blintzes, but instead i'll just point out that you just introduced one of the oldest, most judgment-laden memes about women and abortions.

            you must know that you did that.

            now you are wanting to defend it?

            _______________

            it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

            -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

            by dadanation on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:46:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I wasn't suggesting ANYTHING by that statement; (0+ / 0-)

              It's an honest question.  Rather than answer it, you're putting together a theory of conspiracy.

              "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

              by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:58:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  give me a break (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pandoras Box, sunshineyellow

                now you are being disingenuous and blatantly so.

                unless again someone jumped your screen name to post these comments:

                EXCELLENT point! (0+ / 0-)

                This is where we consider an adoption.

                and then

                Timeline;
                You ask if I think a woman "like that" should be forced, let alone trusted, to raise a child that she doesn't even want.  I say, "great point!  Why not an adoption?"  Then I get a snarky little reply?  I'm sorry, did I miss something?

                in response to the original comment made by YOU wondring:

                What if.. (0+ / 0-)

                ..it's her third abortion outside of extreme circumstances?  Wouldn't you start hesitating in your stead-fast support?

                it is no leap from the "woman like that..." question to the answers you gave to have your bias challenged.

                to draw a rule from the exception (and a very loaded and coded "exception" i might add) is bad form.  and bad policy.  and a tried and true tactic in the abortion policy discussions.

                i would also add unnecessary and very telling.

                no it is not an honest question when you then suggest that i am putting together as theory of conspiracy rather than answering the question i have posed.

                i would also note the pattern is repeated across a few other threads here.

                _______________

                it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

                -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

                by dadanation on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:11:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Why Do You Think a Strong Abortion Debate Should (4+ / 0-)

    continue? What purpose would it serve?

    Right now abortion is technically legal. We've already proven over and over how to minimize them: keep them legal, teach kids sex education and keep contraceptives widely readily available.

    That's basically the liberal political position. Liberals won't interfere with individuals who choose not to have abortions.

    What's there to debate?

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:55:40 AM PDT

  •  Who cares. (6+ / 0-)

    As long your position on abortion never, ever becomes the policy of the party, its presidential nominee, or the United States of America, then I don't give a fuck what kind of misogyny you believe in.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
    Neither is California High Speed Rail

    by eugene on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:01:10 AM PDT

  •  I am a liberal BUT i am also pro-life (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn, liberalis, Pandoras Box

    but i will  NEVER try to push a law against abortion. i rather the child be adopted.

    but Setrak,come on the right wing christians who are pro-life don't want to promote contraceptives so how the fuck can abortion be reduced?

    •  By not listrning to said right-wing Christians. (0+ / 0-)

      Or right-wing Muslims or right-wing Jews.  Or the left-wing ones, for that matter.

      The rise in abortion rates and teenage pregnancy is a direct result of this administration's failed policies.

      "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

      by Setrak on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:36:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're not pro-life (0+ / 0-)

      You're pro-choice.  You believe that the government should not ban abortion.  Whatever you personally want to think about other people's choices doesn't impact your support for choice.

      Right on, Dr. Dean.

      by Mikey on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:53:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can live with wanting to curb abortions BUT (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MA Liberal, esquimaux, Pandoras Box

    I will never agree to a law that takes choice out of a women's hands.

    •  People are so inconsistent and conflicted (0+ / 0-)

      How is "curbing abortions" NOT "taking choice out of a woman's hands"??
      There is nothing TO curb UNLESS she is CHOOSING to abort!  EVERY "curb" you place on that IS taking the choice out of her hands!

      "You can't nice these people to death."-- John Edwards

      by ge0rge on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:29:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm liberal, and I'm pro-life too... (5+ / 0-)

    I believe that a living woman should have the legal right to decide what to do with her body, in private consultation with her doctor.

  •  unintelligent design (5+ / 0-)

    How stupid to think your brothers art is better than a whales song or the poetry of wolves singing in the distance. There is nothing special about humans except arrogance and ignorance about life. We are the products of the evolution you claim to believe. You can "believe" all you want even in "intelligent design" but don't try to legislate your beliefs on the rest of us.
     Only dumb people think ANYONE is "pro" abortion, we all detest the necessity of having abortions. Intelligent people know the arguement is over whether a bunch of old white men should be able to legislate womens rights to their own bodies.

  •  I always answer this type of stance with the (4+ / 0-)

    most appropriate answer:  If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one, but you have no right to impose your religious beliefs upon me or the rest of the America who want their right to chose to remain law.  

    You are uninformed and spreading falsehoods about the teenage pregnancy rate as it is the lowest it has been in 30 years and down 36% since 1990.  

    Teenage pregnancies plummet

    Increased abstinence and increased use of contraceptives are the apparent reasons.  

    The question of when life begins does not "haunt" the pro-choice community.  It is a semantic device to create drama where there is none.  

    The pro-life zealots try to paint pro-choice people as pro-abortion.  No one is pro-abortion.  It is a decision that the woman alone needs to make and then she must deal with the after math, whether it is to have the child, or abort it.

    Most people that I know who are pro-life are men, and they offer simplistic solutions to a woman's pregnancy because they will never have an experience where they are forced to bear a child with all of it's physical dangers and mental ones as well.  There is no good solution to an unplanned pregnancy, but cliched solutions never help.

    "I don't belong to any organized party, I'm a Democrat." Will Rogers

    by Do Tell on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:37:37 AM PDT

  •  The arguments for abortion (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pandoras Box, sunshineyellow

    restriction all boil down to my imaginary friend is against it and women are not competent to make their own health care decisions. Both are invalid.

  •  No, my friend, you can't Liberal & Pro-life (0+ / 0-)

    Look, I fucking HATE abortion. More than you can imagine.  I have seen up close that it can be a terrible mistake that cannot be undone.  But I understand that my beliefs and your beliefs and our religious upbringing do not allow us to put restrictions on other people. You and I have a responsibility to do what we can to decrease the number of abortions and to make it so that people feel like they can exercise another option.  But we have no right to tell women what to do with their bodies.  It's dangerous and damn near fascistic to let the state decide what women can & can't do.  The issue of state power vs. the individual takes greater precedence that the right of a fetus who is not yet born and therefore not a citizen.  I feel that I can be so forthcoming with you in my language because I really do get where you are coming from.  I have actually talked two women out of having abortions and I am very proud of that.  But we have to take this discussion off the "legal table" and bring it down to individuals we can help to make the best decision for themselves and their families. When you say you are "pro-life" but not for overturning Roe v Wade you are being disingenuous. If you are for keeping RvW, then you are pro-choice.  

    Donate to the ACLU. Stand Up for Justice In The Military Commissions Proceedings

    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:31:48 PM PDT

  •  If you're at all religious, then explain your (0+ / 0-)

    position of the SOUL.
    You see, people with your views tend to see the fetus as a human being. But what makes you you is a soul, not a body.
    This is why abortion is not seen as the "murder" of the human being until the third trimester, when most religions agree that is when the soul and body come together.
    Does anyone know for sure? Nope.
    In the long run, we simply cannot go back to the days before Roe v. Wade. It was a dark time of back alley abortions, coat hangers and other barbarous methods of aborting fetuses. Abortion is as old as mankind and will NEVER be stopped. The best thing you can do is educate, and attempt to make abortion rare. But it must always remain legal.
    But of course, you're a guy, so you will never understand completely.

    "In a time of universal deceit -- telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

    by MA Liberal on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 02:51:46 PM PDT

  •  This diarist is HARDLY pro-life (0+ / 0-)

    Or even liberal, for that matter.   You have to have a modicum of intelligence first.  It is simply not in evidence.   He has offered to respond to questions but he is in no position to be answering questions.  He needs to ask quite a few more.

    I consider myself pro-choice first, but personally I am against abortion.

    This is just completely self-contradictory.  If you are "personally against" abortion, THEN YOU NEED A REASON.  Shit -- as A MAN, you CANNOT BE "personally against" abortion, because it CAN NEVER affect you PERSONALLY!  ANYthing you are trying to say about abortion involves IMPOSING YOUR WILL on SOMEONE ELSE.

    "You can't nice these people to death."-- John Edwards

    by ge0rge on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:27:28 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site