" Just like those of us who didn't vote for Bush had to live with policies, those of you who didn't vote for Obama are going to have to live with his policies. Like it or not that's the way it works. All the letters to the editor and whiny bloggers on here and other sites will have no effect on how things happen in Washington.

The right wing religious faction had their candidate in office for 8 years, and we all saw the results of that. Just exactly did Bush do for them, other than pay them lip service for their votes. "

" Ms. Dubois, you ask, "I now ask what we as Christians will do if he uses Executive Order (as he has promised) or signs the Freedom of Choice Act if Congress passes it."

Are you asking people to continue the same (and ineffective) approach that has been going on for decades? Religious right-fighting hasn't gotten the pro-life movement very far, has it?

The arrogant tone of this letter possibly provides a clue to why people who oppose abortion have had so little success. Like it or not, nearly a quarter of people who consider themselves evangelical or "born again" voted for President Obama; also, people voted for him for many reasons other than his being black and young.

Trying to muster a holy war against abortion hasn't worked in the past, and it isn't going to work now. You and other conservative Christians really, really need to come up with a new paradigm. Maybe it's time to abandon the idea of banning all abortions. Why not try to reduce abortion's occurrence--by helping women prevent crisis pregnancies or by supporting women experiencing them? "

" Ms NANCY DUBOIS

Thank you for your presentation of your views. You ask what Christians should do now? You suggest praying. That is certainly appropriate. I, however, wish to suggest some additional things that Christians and those who are not Christians who may be concerned about this issue, may do.

I believe in personal responsibility and thus accountability for ones actions. I, recognize that personal responsibility is not popular. When something happens, people want to avoid responsibility for their actions. That is unfortunate. If one would take responsibility for their actions, many of the issues surrounding abortion would disappear. Thus, all, including me, should always take responsibility for their actions. That would foster the concept of responsibility and reduce the possibility of abortion.

Taking responsibility includes using contraception and, having the means to do so. That means making information about contraception available and providing ways to obtain appropriate means of contraception. It also means teaching about responsibility for ones actions so that one is accountable for their actions.

Unfortunately, not everyone will take responsibility for their actions. If you dont believe that is true, just look around and see what is going on. Thus, what happens if there is an unwanted pregnancy. To require someone to take care of a child, who is unwanted, is to abuse the child. Thus, those who are against abortion should be willing to come forth and adopt child and care for it so that the child will thrive. Yes it would be nice if the biological parents would take responsibility for their actions, but that doesnt happen.

I am sure that there are those who say, but it is the responsibility of the biological parents to raise the child. Sure, I agree. But, now you have condemned that child to a life of potential abuse, certainly the abuse of being unloved. If all one is concerned about is that the child has been born, then, in my opinion, they have not really expressed true concern for the child. "

" ms. dubois needs to realize all "christians" aren't necessarily against abortion.

my wife who happens to consider herself "christian" was brutally beaten, raped and left for dead... and ended up pregnant.

she sought help, and aborted the preganancy. that was over 20 years ago. she still defends a woman's right to choose regardless of religious beliefs. it's a woman's choice no one else's......period. "

" So Nancy, does your stand for the sanctity of life also include women? Please read the following article about illegal abortion:

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2086/

Five thousand women die from clandestine abortions every year in Latin America. It has one of the highest abortion rates in the world, despite its near-universal illegality.

Like I keep saying, making abortion illegal WILL NOT STOP ABORTIONS!! It only puts women's lives at risk when they go and get illegal ones from some butcher. "

" I don't understand how someone can claim to believe in the sanctity of life and ignore the sanctity of the womans life. The womans rights come first. That includes the right to full, complete unbiased information about all her options and the risks and expenses involved, free birth control in hopes of avoiding an unwanted pregnancy and medical care whether she chooses to go through with a pregnancy or not. "

" Becky says...Like I keep saying, making abortion illegal WILL NOT STOP ABORTIONS!! It only puts women's lives at risk when they go and get illegal ones from some butcher. "

So then, using that same mentality, why don't we make all illegal drugs legal? "

" I have always found it amusing that the people who are for killing babies are the ones who are against capital punishment and the people who are for capital punishment are against killing babies. I realize that there are always exceptions to this. "

" wow I didn't realize christians were the only vote that mattered Nancy, wow spoken like a true hypocrit, that and equalizer is right "

" Oh Nancy, maybe you should stop pushing your beliefs on everyone else in the country and let everyone live in a country that actually supports the separation of church and state. I can't wait till the hegemonic center shifts and the Religious Right no longer has control. Then we will truly be a free country. I find it very funny/sad that Nancy says, "It does feel good to see the world finally viewing the US as a land of opportunity rather than burning our flag and calling us racist" when she doesn't mention we're still a one-religion, homophobic, anti-women's rights country. Yeah, sounds like such a huge land of opportunity, doesn't it Nancy? "

" UNBELIEVABLE

Jim Geraghty reports on Barack Obamas statement on the sanctity of human life during todays National Prayer Breakfast:

"BARACK OBAMA

Lots of Audacity, Not Much Hope

President Obama, moments ago, during the National Prayer Breakfast: "WE KNOW THERE IS NO GOD WHO CONDONES THE KILLING OF AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING."

So, let me guess, he'll wait another 24 hours before promoting the Freedom of Choice Act?"

+++++++

Clearly Obama's strategy is to secure a position on ALL sides of any issue, so he can deny he ever flip flopped.

He can say he simply "clarified".

Ahh that Harvard Law training....... "

" das wrote on Feb 5, 2009 5:10 PM:
" Oh Nancy, maybe you should stop pushing your beliefs on everyone else in the country and let everyone live in a country that actually supports the separation of church and state. I can't wait till the hegemonic center shifts and the Religious Right no longer has control."

Exactly how has she forced her beliefs on you or proposed a state controlled religion? In case you didn't notice abortion is legal and we have a pro-baby killer as president. I don't see how you think the Religious Right is in control of you. This is just typical over-reacting by the left when someone even mentions their religious beliefs. Get your finger of the panic button. Jesus's stormtroopers are not gonna knock down your door and force you to say grace. "

" ... a pro-baby killer as president.

Huh?

Are we sensing a little anger here, eddie?

It appears that eddie is now trying to be the spokesman for the entire right wing. Better look out ed, Blowdog might not be too happy about you trying to take over his job. "

" Thursday, February 05, 2009

DeMint Amendment Against Religious Discrimination Fails

Democrats Vote to Discriminate Against Students of Faith

Stimulus bans universities and colleges from using funds to renovate buildings where students engage in religious worship

Washington, D.C. Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) made the following statement after Democrats voted 43-54 against his amendment to strike language from the economic stimulus bill that discriminates against students of faith. Senator DeMints amendment would have eliminated a provision that bans any university or college receiving funds to renovate buildings, from allowing "sectarian instruction" or "religious worship" within the facility. This would in effect bar use of campus buildings for groups like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Campus Crusade for Christ, Catholic Student Ministries, Hillel, and other religious organizations.

"This is a direct attack on students of faith, and Im outraged Democrats are using an economic stimulus bill to promote discrimination," said Senator DeMint. "Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for siding with the ACLU over millions of students of faith. These students simply want equal access to public facilities, which is their constitutional right. This hostility toward religion must end. Those who voted to for this discrimination are standing in the schoolhouse door to deny people of faith from entering any campus building renovated by this bill."

"This is now an ACLU stimulus designed to trigger lawsuits designed to intimidate religious organizations across the nation. This language is so vague, it's not clear if students can even pray in a dorm room renovated with this funding since that is a form of 'religious worship.' If this provision remains in the bill, it will have a chilling effect on students of faith in America."

"It is in hard times that our society most needs faith. It provides the light that no darkness can overcome. This provision is an attempt to extinguish that light from college campuses, from the lives of our youth."

+++++

Discrimination towards Christians is now perfectly acceptable it would appear. "

" No let me see, who is it that whines when someone cuts and pastes and doesn't give proper credit. I seem to recall him having a hissy fit a while back and actually accusing father bob of plagiarism for failing to credit a cut a paste job. What a phony hypocrite. But I guess that's OK because that was when he was posting as Doh.

And then again, perhaps it was from one of his many right wing wacko sites. Ed Morrissey perhaps? LOL! "

" Once again the topic has been raised concerning President Obama's reversal of the "gag order" on availability of medical funds. And as usual, the poster does not understand the significance of the action that he took. If she did, she wouldn't be putting him down for it.

Here is how the gag order worked:

Imagine a medical clinic trying to provide medical services in an impoverished area of the world. They treat the sick and injured. They conduct health examinations. They provide medicine to the poor. They provide vaccinations. In many cases they provide necessary surgery for things like appendicitis, cancer, and the like. And they very much need the influx of this money in order to keep providing these services to people that otherwise would not receive them.

Now imagine that a woman comes to them and says that she has decided to have an abortion. A worker at the clinic tells her where to go to get a safe abortion. Or maybe the worker gives the woman an informational pamphlet describing what happens during an abortion. It doesn't matter what the worker does, because, under the gag order, all the worker has to do is say the word abortion and all funding is denied. For everything. That is why they call it a gag order. It stops people from talking about it. Or else.

Yes, that might mean no abortions. But that also means no vaccinations, no medicine, no surgery. It means not having enough sterile medical supplies, which usually means disposable equipment is reused. It means not enough bandages, and antibiotics, and trained staff. It means that people become disabled or even die because the clinic did not have the money to operate. It means that children die. It means desperate women die in back alleys from trying to help themselves with shoddy, sometimes very unsanitary, methods.

Anyone who supports such an order is not concerned with the sanctity of life. To deny people proper medical care in all areas for considering something that, by the way, is legal in this country, is despicable. So maybe they prevent an abortion. The odds are the infant will only die later due to lack of medical supplies, or is crippled by measles, mumps, or rubella.

And by the way. Most politicians aren't in favor of abortion. They are against government interference over what is a personal issue. And they are against laws that do not take into account the mother's health, incest, and rape.

If you really want to stop abortion, then work to stop the pregnancies to begin with. Work to make contraception cheap and available. Support sex education in the schools. Make it possible for anyone to know how to protect themselves if they decide to become sexually active. Teach young men that this is also their responsiblity and not just the woman's. Provide information on all the alternatives, including abstinance. Make sure that everybody who is capable of producing a baby knows how not to. And get off this schtick about providing this information to minors because you aren't protecting them from anything by witholding information.

I do not like abortions and would love to see them disappear. But nothing on this planet would cause me to help in taking away the right to choose without offering an equally workable solution to the problem. And you have no business expecting government to stick its collective noses into my personal life. We don't need laws. We need a change in attitude. "

" I am angry about this issue. The States should be able to regulate abortions as they see fit. It is inconceivable to me that the 14th amendment, written to guarantee rights to newly freed slaves, was somehow determined to also give the women a right to an abortion. I doubt this is what the authors intended. It's just an example of the Court overstepping their authority and legislating from the bench which is definately not what the framers of the constitution intended. No matter what one's personal or religious views on abortion are, the federal government should not have any legal jurisdiction over the states rights without a specific amendment giving them that authority. "

" "So then, using that same mentality, why don't we make all illegal drugs legal?"

Fine by me. It actually would help A LOT! We could tax and regulate the drugs and use that money to help people get off of them. We then wouldn't have over flowing prisons that we have to pour billions a year into feeding, clothing and housing the so-called criminals who only want to get high. It's their personal choice and making them illegal hasn't even came close to stopping the drug trade. That's EXACTLY my point! "

" BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 5, 2009 7:37 PM:

" UNBELIEVABLE

Jim Geraghty reports on Barack Obamas statement on the sanctity of human life during todays National Prayer Breakfast:

"BARACK OBAMA

Lots of Audacity, Not Much Hope

President Obama, moments ago, during the National Prayer Breakfast: "WE KNOW THERE IS NO GOD WHO CONDONES THE KILLING OF AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING."

So, let me guess, he'll wait another 24 hours before promoting the Freedom of Choice Act?"

+++++++

Clearly Obama's strategy is to secure a position on ALL sides of any issue, so he can deny he ever flip flopped.

He can say he simply "clarified".

Ahh that Harvard Law training....... "


Do you not agree with that statement? I think it is quite simply and logically put that no matter who you pray to or what religion it is that in the end that God or the God does not condone in killing the innocent, apparently you find that to be ok like former president Bush did, a true just person does think about all sides, you are making your self look fairly scummy at this point "

" Actually Mr. Miller the federal government has the right to protect the rights of all of its citizens whether a "right" is specifically spelled out in the Constitution or not. Lets see what some examples might be: highway and automobile safety laws, food safety and product safety laws, I don't think the writers of our Constitution spelled out that Americans have the right to a safe food and drug supply or the right to drive an automobile that meets minimum safety requirements. OR do you grant the federal government the right to interfere ONLY in what benefits YOU particularly and not in what benefits women? "

" where were you pro-lifers when we were killing 600,000 iraqi citizens?

you hypocritical bible thumping hatemongers will stoop to anything. "

" Becky wrote on Feb 6, 2009 7:16 AM:
"It's their personal choice and making them illegal hasn't even came close to stopping the drug trade. That's EXACTLY my point! """"

well said becky "

" nancy dont get discouraged with your beliefs just try to keep it simple remember GOD grant me the serenity to accept the things you cannot change the couarge to change the things you can and the wisdom to know the difference "

" No, the framers of the constitution did not write into this document laws concerning food and drug safety, traffic rules, etc. They were able to see to the ratification of new laws, especially those they could not forsee, by doing one simple thing. They created the Judicial section of the U.S. Government and empowered it to propose, pass, and enact laws as the need arises. That is why we elect Senators and Representatives.

Then they empowered the Supreme Court to compare these laws with the Constitution to ensure that they comply with the directions established there. Ammendment 14 section 1 states ...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. Nine members of the court, after listening to cases brought before them and extended debates among themselves, determined that these priviledges included a woman's right to her own body. A later case heard with a different group of judges re-debated the issue and determined that the original ruling was sound and should be upheld.

The Federal Government has the authority to pass rulings to prevent states from creating laws that the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional. The President has the right to veto any bill passed by the House and Senate, which can then try for a veto over ride. The President is not likely going to veto a bill that allows for an action that the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional. And any politician or state that insists on basing action on personal feelings instead of rule of law needs to do a little reevaluation of their own. This is how the government works.

The Constitution itself is about the size of a large pamphlet. My own personal copy, printed out on standard copy paper, is fifteen pages long. For someone to argue that the Constitution does not directly identify something as being either a right or a priveledge should probably take a remedial course in government 1.01. "

" Since the point of my post went flying over your head (as usual)

I'll dumb this down fer ya injustice85:

If Obama truly believes that there "IS NO GOD WHO CONDONES THE KILLING OF AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING"

then why does Obama condone killing the truly innocent, unborn child? "

" (father bob sputters -"where were you pro-lifers when we were killing 600,000 iraqi citizens?")


I hate to break this to you, FatHead Bobby, but your 600,000 Iraqi citizens meme is complete far-left bull.

Not only did George Soros fund the Lancet Study that you hysterical anti-war moonbats keep citing with this ridiculous talking point, but just two days ago a research association publicly rebuked Gilbert Burnham (the author of this Left-wing propaganda) for not disclosing his methodology, and Burnham may face action from his employer, Johns Hopkins.

From ABCNews (Feb 4 2009)

NONDISCLOSURE CITED IN IRAQ CAUSALITIES STUDY

Controversial Survey Author Rebuked for Failing to Disclose Details of His Work

"In a highly unusual rebuke, the American Association for Public Opinion Research today said the author of a widely debated survey on "excess deaths" in Iraq had violated its code of professional ethics by refusing to disclose details of his work. The author's institution later disclosed to ABC News that it, too, is investigating the study.

AAPOR, in a statement, said that in an eight-month investigation, Gilbert Burnham, a faculty member at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, "repeatedly refused to make public essential facts about his research on civilian deaths in Iraq."

Hours later, the school itself disclosed its own investigation of the Iraq casualties report "to determine if any violation of the school's rules or guidelines for the conduct of research occurred." It said the review "is nearing completion."

Both AAPOR and the school said they had focused on Burnham's study, published in the October 2006 issue of the British medical journal the Lancet, reporting an estimated 654,965 "excess deaths" in Iraq as a result of the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. An earlier, 2004 report, in which Burnham also participated, estimated approximately 98,000 excess deaths to that point."

+++++++

Now go back to your corner and curl up like a nice little rat, bobby. "

" as i said, 600,000 innocent iraqis slaughtered.....and the people of the US with blood their hands....all brought to you by three evil, hate filled, murdering leaders of what was once the greatest nation on this rock.

those of you who can't take the truth need to slither back under your rotting garbage dump. "

" " where were you pro-lifers when we were killing 600,000 iraqi citizens?

you hypocritical bible thumping hatemongers will stoop to anything. " "

" i suppose when it all comes right down to it, abortion is the same as sport hunting. "

" Uhm.....FatHead Bobby,

I just posted an article that destroyed your 600,000 Iraqi deaths garbage.

And here you are FatHead, repeating the same old propaganda all over again.

Tell me FatHead,

Do you personally have sources that know more than:

-ABCNews?

-The American Association for Public Opinion Research?

-Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health?

Or, FatHead, can you explain how Burnham also participated in a survey that originally estimated approximately 98,000 deaths?


Go ahead Bobby, source your lies. "

" Sorry Harry! Got to get on you again about your english. You keep leaving words out of your sentences. "

" Um Susan,

exactly how are airbags and the FDA the same as abortion? "

" ...it is time to put aside our differences and, in the name of our Lord, boldly take a stand for the sanctity of life.

So, you also suggest we abolish the death penalty and stop fighting wars?

I see...

They're "different", huh? "

" elbert wrote:"Taking responsibility includes using contraception and, having the means to do so. That means making information about contraception available and providing ways to obtain appropriate means of contraception. It also means teaching about responsibility for ones actions so that one is accountable for their actions."

Indeed. And yet those who rant against abortion are often the same people who oppose teaching young people anything about contraception. They often propose instead young people should be taught "abstinance only". Yet research has shown that this DOES NOT WORK. Those who have taken the "ring ceremony" are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who have not.
But having taken the oath, they never have contraception with them so when IT happens they can claim, "I didn't intend to do IT; I was just ... carried away." They don't carry contraception because that would imply premeditated intent. So they are at greater risk than those who have received the facts about contraception. "

" buh wrote:"and the people who are for capital punishment are against killing babies."

There is some truth to this. I recall years ago when Senator Percy was holding a public meeting in town, a minister had brought with him a crew of young people and every time Percy was ready for a new question, one of the young people would pop up and ask his position on abortion, and increasingly one would hear scornful sounds from the audience because these people were overly persistent, asking the same question over and over.
Percy understandably was a bit vexed by this and when the minister himself stood up to deliver his views on "killing" Percy asked him, "Are you in favor of capital punishment?" The minister could not bring himself to lie and answered, "Yes".
There was a roar of applause from the audience because Percy had trapped the man in a contradiction.

I am however vexed by those who believe that the Bible takes a view that life begins at conception. At the beginning of Leviticus, Chapter 27 there is an evaluation of individuals:
"The Lord said to Moses, 'Say to the people of Israel...If the person is from a month old up to five years old, your evaluation shall be 5 shekels of silver and for a female your evaluation shall be 3 shekels of silver.'" There are evaluations for all the ages up from this point, but NONE LOWER. This implies that the Lord considered those of age less than a month HAD NO VALUE.
There is NO MENTION whatsoever of a person created at the moment of conception. "

" Harry Potter writes:"Blowdog might not be too happy about you trying..."

BLOWDOG.

WOW, Harry, you've got him categorized
properly, like a butterfly on a pin. "

" Blowdog:""This is a direct attack on students of faith, and Im outraged Democrats are using an economic stimulus bill to promote discrimination," said Senator DeMint."

Ah well, we know that DeMint is a bit demented and has never had the section of the Constitution on separation of church and state read to him. "

" "They created the Judicial section of the U.S. Government and empowered it to propose, pass, and enact laws as the need arises. That is why we elect Senators and Representatives."
Judicial?? "elect Senators and Represenatives"??
Somebody is confused. The Senators and Representatives belong to the Legislative branch. See Article I of the Constitution. "

" "father bob wrote on Feb 6, 2009 2:35 PM:
" as i said, 600,000 innocent iraqis slaughtered.....and the people of the US with blood their hands....all brought to you by three evil, hate filled, murdering leaders of what was once the greatest nation on this rock.

those of you who can't take the truth need to slither back under your rotting garbage dump. "

Thanks to father bob for standing by the truth. "

" I see Locke,

so war and abortion are the "same" in your eyes, huh? "

" It's just an example of the Court overstepping their authority and legislating from the bench which is definately not what the framers of the constitution intended.

This appears to be the 4th favorite argument of the utterly braindead. There's a ruling you don't like? JUDICIAL ACTIVISM. Of course, when it's something you do like, it's just strict interpretation.

Sir, you have every right to voice your opinion on anything, but it's not worth much in my book when you recycle the statements and follow the media like a right-leaning sheep. Thank you for being, more or less, worthless in the process except bleating about like every other sheep. "

" Locke wrote on Feb 6, 2009 9:18 PM:
" It's just an example of the Court overstepping their authority and legislating from the bench which is definately not what the framers of the constitution intended.

This appears to be the 4th favorite argument of the utterly braindead. There's a ruling you don't like? JUDICIAL ACTIVISM. Of course, when it's something you do like, it's just strict interpretation.

Sir, you have every right to voice your opinion on anything, but it's not worth much in my book when you recycle the statements and follow the media like a right-leaning sheep. Thank you for being, more or less, worthless in the process except bleating about like every other sheep. " "

" Locke wrote on Feb 6, 2009 9:18 PM:
" This appears to be the 4th favorite argument of the utterly braindead."

I seem to have noticed in your thinly veiled personal attack that no where did you say I was wrong. No where did you attempt to tell us how an amendment to guarantee rights to newly freed slaves, somehow also included the right of women to kill unborn children whenever they deemed them inconvenient. Funny, at the time of the 14th amendment women did not even have the right to vote, and yet we felt the need to give them that right via a separate amendment. So why couldn't we just lump the voting in the 14th amendment too? Also, which amendment gives rights to unborn children? As long as the courts are dealing out "new rights" like candy, why don't we all have the right to do drugs? At least that doesn't result in the death of an innocent being. So, please tell us Mr. Law Professor how the court had the authority to say that women have the right to abortion without a specific amendment. "

" My apologies to you, Cognitus, and thanks for the correction. I had the Supreme Court on my mind when I posted and in error used their branch designation. And then I failed to notice the error. That makes two errors to apologize for. Mea culpa. "

" Mr. Miller Air bags (like you,oh sorry couldn't resist). I will start again you used the states rights arguments, rights not granted to the federal government specifically remain the rights of the states, Air bags and highway safety blow a hole in that argument. It is pure hypocrisy to accept (even demand) federal intervention in areas that benefit YOU and deny the right of federal intervention in areas that don't benefit YOU. "

" I once had the good fortune to be able to adopt a Maine Coon cat whose owner had decided that there was no more room for animals in her life. It was one of my smarter decisions, and often the source of great humor.

For those of you not familiar with the breed, these cats are huge and have faces more reminiscent of wild cats than domestic. But their nick name, and rightly deserved, is "the gentle giant."

Toby was a very good car cat who would sit in the seat next to me and watch the world go by. It was nice not to require a carrier as for other, more panic proned cats. One day I was taking him to the vet for shots and a physical, and I just slung him over my shoulder to carry him into the office. There was another woman with an average sized cat in front of me settling her bill who would cast a glance in Toby's direction now and then.

When the receptionist asked me if I was there to get my cat's vaccinations, the woman sucked in her breath, turned around in surprise, and said "that's a cat!"

Because of his size and wild appearance, my sister in law was not comfortable around Toby. I am positive that he was aware of this fact and, posessing a wicked sense of humor, would subtly take advantage of it. Whenever my sister in law visited he would position himself on the floor in front of her and stare. Before too long she would pull her feet up off the floor onto the sofa and watch him nervously. I swear that, when she finally left, he would walk away laughing.

Toby died at a ripe old age and is very much missed.

I thought Toby sealed my fate as a cat person forever until my parents, who now live with me, took in a Maltese with a checkered past. My parents were her fourth set of owners all before she reached her first birthday. I don't know why the others passed her along, but she surely blossomed under my parents care. She keeps us all entertained with her ability to understand many words, and her practice of hiding treats all over the house for later indulgences. We find them in shoes, under furniture, and tucked into the couch cushions.

One day my father did not hear my mother call him into the dinner table, so the dog went to get him for her without being prompted. Say the word bye-bye and she'll run to the front door. Say the word potty and she'll run to the back door. And the message is clear when she tells both of them that it is time for them to go to bed.

We have been blessed with two very wonderful little furry family members. When the position once again becomes vacant, I don't know whether or not it should be filled with a cat or a dog. We may have to get both. "

" Oh joy, we have another selfproclaimed expert from the liberal side of the isle in here. This time it's the constitutional law scholar Locke to explain to us that murdering the unborn was what our founding fathers had in mind all along. "

" God IS, I enjoyed your post about your Maine Coon cat. Did you post it on the wrong thread? I've done the same thing in the past. Please put it on the "puppycat" site so the rest of the kitty lovers can enjoy it. "

" Reply to Billie Brant: It is on the wrong thread, although I'm not sure how. I was reading the "puppy-cat" article and do not remember changing the site. I must have touched a wrong button somewhere, somehow. It is a connundrum, and probably one of my own making.

I usually prefer to keep away from the political issues and only discovered this was posted here because I had marked my reply to find it faster. And yes, I did think of this as a political issue because the letter was encouraging Christians to behave in a particularly political manner.

I must confess that, now that I have read this stream, that I found one thing disturbing. That is the trend that the Christians who are posting their political views are accused of forcing those views on others instead of merely stating where they stand politically as is their civic right. And many of those oppossed to the issue appear to believe that they are not forcing their views upon others, but stating where they stand politically as is their civic right.

In this country people have the right to draw upon their unique experiences and the feelings that they raise in order to decide how they stand politically. And they have the right to express those view in order to encourage other like-minded people to do the same. Expressing views is part of the political process in this country. Views are only forced when others are compelled to vote in a particular way despite their personal beliefs. I don't believe that anyone using this site has ever been forced to vote for anything.

As to the rest, my response is the same as that told to people objecting to television programs. If you don't like the views that you are seeing, change the channel, To tell someone they should just say nothing is not the American way. It is the way of those who seek to limit freedoms. "

" Ok Susan, now please tell us how federal safety laws designed to protect all of us somehow also give the feds the right to tell states that they can't keep people from killing innocent children if that's what the democratically elected state government chooses. I'll be the first to admit the feds have overstepped their constitutional boundaries on a lot of things but why can you can be arrested for not having your infant in a child car seat, but a few months earlier you can legally murder it. "

" "This time it's the constitutional law scholar Locke to explain to us that murdering the unborn was what our founding fathers had in mind all along."

Compared to people who don't even understand what is, and is not, murder, yes, I am a Constitutional law scholar. See, murder is an illegal killing -- such as in the Hebrew version of Exodus, "Thou shalt not murder. Did I mention I was also a Biblical scholar as well? The problem is, neither the government of the United States nor the Bible have deemed abortion murder. In fact, the Bible even sanctions abortions -- bet you didn't know that either. But then again, sheep only recycle what they are told to bleat. "

" Well Locke,

Since you're a scholar of the Constitution, and the Bible, and a self-proclaimed Atheist,

please compare and contrast your definition of an illegal killing to Fetal Homicide, Abortion, and Infanticide. "

" BLUEDOGDEMOCRAT it is an issue much considered but the fact of some people having no self control creates a problem that shouldn't have to be thought about when we are already overloaded with problems, it is also an issue that won't be settled as quick as some of the stuff that pops out of your head lands on here, I don't agree with his stance on that but I also don't care to much, sounds cruel but it is a problem that could be prevented easily in my opinion, too many ways exist to keep people from getting pregnant or needing an abortion and it is sad that as much as other technology is utilized nowadays people still can't handle THEMSELVES "

" Locke has some valid points. In the bible, newborns are not accepted into the community until so many days after their birth when they are presented at the temple for inclusion. Male infants are circumsized at this time. And I think that I read somewhere where the Jewish faith believes that the soul only enters the body at the time of birth. Of course, I need to heavily rely on the Jewish readers here, since I have no background reference to know how correct this is.

If you think about it, it makes sense. Medical science knows that a certain number of pregnancies fail before the mother even knows that she has was pregnant. Some of those fertilized eggs fail to implant and die because of it. Still more are lost to what are commonly called miscarriages. Others die shortly after birth due to being born too early or having defects that make life outside the womb impossible. Medical science has advanced to save some of the latter, but often it is at the cost of great physical hardships throughout life. People in the bible waited until it was apparent that the child had a chance of living before gving it a name and welcoming it into the community. Which to them meant into the human community.

I spent a bit of time studying embryology. After learning all the things that can go wrong, I was left somewhat amazed that any pregnancy is able to make it to term. It left me wondering that if God were so concerned with the existance of the unborn, would he have made the chance of survival to birth such a gamble? Or would he have developed a system whereby every egg fertilized became a new living breathing baby.

Of course everybody knows one thing. The odds of this debate lasting for so many years would be lessened if men did have to bear the pregnancies. When you can psychologically remove yourself from the experience, it becomes easier to tell everyone else what they should be doing.

The one thing that I believe I can agree on is this: Abortion is not a method of contraception. If incest, rape, or health of the mother isn't an issue, then two people, a man and a woman, failed to behave responsibly. Anyone whose lack of personal responsiblity, man or woman, has lead to an unwanted pregnancy more than once that was ended through abortion deserves the label of murderer. I don't care how difficult the decision was. And I don't care if men don't get pregnant. They are fifty percent of the problem, and should therefore be fifty percent of the solution. "

" Because Mr. Miller automobiles cross state lines, people cross state lines, state lines are arbitrary/man drawn boundaries. The federal government is in the business of protecting the rights of its citizens,from sea to shining sea and from Canada to Mexico, that includes women. If the feds can intervene to protect the rights of African Americans, American Indians, Hispanics and other "people of color" from states that wanted to restrict their rights (from voting laws, education laws, lynchings, illegal search and seizure, etc.) then the feds can (and must) intervene to protect the rights of women. "

" So Becky, you would hand your six year old a bottle of Whiskey, a couple syringes of cocaine, and some KY? "

" If we are truly our brother's keeper, if life is truly a self-evident unalienable Right endowed by our Creator, if the unborn are truly the most innocent of lives; then we, as a society, as human beings, as God's children, as a Representative Republic, as the decedents of our parents, as the legacy of our Founding Fathers, should ALL be a part of the solution.

In our current culture of death, every murder of every unborn voiceless child falls on the heads of us all.
When we as a society, can no longer protect the most innocent of all life; then what life IS worth protecting?

Unfortunately, divided we stand, and united we fall. "

" Is there no end to the plagiarism? Once again he cuts and pastes without giving credit. Everyone forgets to give credit once in a while but this moron is doing it daily. LOL! "

" we also owe it to them to give them a good world to be raised in and at least Obama is attempting to make it at least look like he is doing that lol "

" If you're referring to my post as plagiarism, Harry, then try again.

Feel free to Google it, or track it down any way you like.

I'm sorry to disappoint you Harry, but it came from me, your humble, simple, uneducated friend, BDD. "

" (injustice85 - "Obama is attempting to make it at least look like he is doing that lol)

The operative words here are:

make

it

look "

" The difference would appear to be chronology. The prolifers choose the unborn to the detriment of the already born, while the available for any reason pro choicers value the lives of the already born above the unborn. And they are all so busy politicizing they have failed to notice that they are all cut out of the same cloth because each has terribly undervalued another human life. And because of this, none of these will ever be the solution to the problem. They will just continue to be the source of it. "

" "So Becky, you would hand your six year old a bottle of Whiskey, a couple syringes of cocaine, and some KY?"

Ummmmmmmm.....no. And yet the whiskey's legal. And I wouldn't hand them a cigarrette either. Oh and just because I see the futality of the drug laws doesn't mean I do them. They would be legal for ADULTS. Just like alchohol and cigarettes are today. Sheeshe. Talk about taking things to the extreme. There's always one.

And yet, nobody's stated anything about the futality of illegalizing abortion. And when men can go to jail for it too, then we'll talk. "

" Technoless "we" haven't undervalued a human life by saying that a womans rights come first any more than the fireman undervalues a human life when he realizes he can only get one person in a burning house to safety and makes a difficult choice or when a policeman shoots someone in the line of duty in an effort to "save" others or when a husband pulls the life support systems from his comatose wife or when a soldier on a battlefield kills someone. Sometimes people have to make difficult choices and the person of compassion doesn't challenge, condemn, second guess, judge the other for the choices made but offers support and services. It is precisely because people realize the full extent of what they have done that soldiers have difficulty returning to civilian life, why police officers and fire fighters are often required to meet with a counselor after such incidents. It is because we value life that we can see the tragedy of the situation from multiple points of view. "

" Hardly a fair comparison. The fireman did not set the fire. The policeman did not commit the crime. The soldier did not start the war. They deal with threats begun outside of their realm of influence, trying to achieve the best outcome for the circumstances.

In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, two people failed in their responsibility when they chose to have sex and lacked proper protection. Some of them do that a lot. Some just don't like the gender of the child that they have produced. Such an attitude is utter disreguard for another human life.

The right to choose is darkened by individuals who behave this way. You should try reading Jane Roe's comment of disgust when approached by a woman who thanked her for the five abortions she was able to undergo. Jane Roe sought to attain the right for women to choose to abort for specific situations, such as rape, incest, the mother's health, and maybe even the rare "accident." The current attitude of any whim any time saddened her, and made her achievement bittersweet.

The insistance of many pro choicers to put no limits on abortion is just as bad as the antiabortionists insistance on criminalizing them all. The only difference between them is the age of the lives that they find less significant. "

" Another interesting note on Jane Roe. She switched sides. Count her among those now against the practice of abortion. Of course, she is better at it than most who just pay lip service. She actually helps to run a series of organizations that provide assistance and support to those who find themselves with unwanted pregnancies. She helps make them feel less helpless and alone. People who don't feel so desperate are able to make better choices. She helps to salvage the lives of both the mother and the child, because she finds them both to be of significance. Still a winner. "

" Technoless your argument was that those that support a womans right undervalue life. I pointed out with the fireman, soldier and policeman examples that isn't the case. Now as to the responsibility argument. That is a different kettle of fish. You argue that people want abortions because they are irresponsible. That may be true in some cases, but not in all. Making such sweeping statements trivializes the entire issue. The abortion debate isn't JUST about taking responsibility for your actions. It is also about having the education/knowledge and the tools needed to make responsible choices. "

" Sweeping statements my left foot. Read it again. I was very specific as to whose behavior endangers the right to choose.

Nice attempt, but no cigar. "

" Hey man Bush didn't even try, I wondered how the man even dressed himself "