[SeanG]

Starboy, you realize Dread Scott has more in common with Roe vs. Wade and Doe V. Bolton than does any point you and I were trying to make.

Bishop, I asked for those here to drop out of debating mode and have a conversation. Its not hard. I have a feeling you are one of those people that will go out with friends and every time a simple question is asked you beat around the bush and rant to and fro. I can debate very well. However, I am merely asking for a Volconversation. You obviously cannot, for whatever reason… maybe too many years in these debate rooms and you think everything is an affront to your senses? For anyone to say that they don’t care if there are more abortions or not, no matter where they stand on the issue, or for someone not to make a stand that even one of the most liberal Senators in the history of the Senate made, is, well, untruthful. Don’t say I would like to see more responsible sex, and this would drop the rates of STD’s, abortion and the like. Just come out and say you would like to see abortion decreased or increased. Would you prefer a status quo? Children die from the procedure. Middle-aged mothers die from the procedures. And very possibly, the procedure is ending a viable life (this is where we disagree, but you cannot disagree that forcefully stopping the bodies natural process isn’t deadly to some).

It is amazing to me how those who are “progressive,” “liberal,” “independent,” “secular,” whatever, cannot just come out and say that something is wrong or that they would like to see that something should at the least be reduced. This seems to be a disease of the left and of secularism.

Again, I ask the question, and let me requote Hillary and Ted, does anyone here agree or disagree with them?

Hillary Clinton: “….in reaching our goal of keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century…. More has to be done to reach out to young men, and enlist them in the campaign to make abortions rare….” Ted kennedy: “Surely, we can all agree that abortion should be rare, and that we should do all we can to help women avoid the need to face that decision…”

I never thought I would be defending a concept by these two… funny shite! It should be rare because woman suffer psychological issues from that point on. It is dangerous, and it is the result of bad choices. All those things can lead any common person to flatly state that “Yes, abortion should be rare.”

However, people who could care less or are apathetic about it will soon wake up to incidents not unlike those already happening, just more routine:

CWA’s Illinois State Director (SD) Karen Hayes recently uncovered disturbing news about Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn. It routinely performs “live-birth abortions”—which it labels “therapeutic”—in which babies deemed unworthy of life are delivered and left to die. In other words, it permits infanticides. This discovery even outraged former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. On September 15, he wrote a letter to Advocate Health Care, Christ Hospital’s parent company, condemning this practice. Addressing spina bifida victims specifically, Dr. Koop wrote, “This is truly a barbaric outrage … Abortion for Spina Bifida is not indicated unless one is committed to a practice of eugenics.”

Maybe some here will find solice in Peter Singer’s statement that:

"If we compare a severely defective human infant with a dog or a pig ... we will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities ... only the fact that the defective infant is a member of the species homo sapiens leads it to be treated differently from the dog or pig. But species membership alone is not relevant ... If we can put aside the obsolete and erroneous notion of the sanctity of all human life, we may start to look at human life as it really is: the quality of life that each human being has or can obtain." http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner...Evolution.html

Does any one here have the spine enough to simply state that abortion should become rare. If not it is only a commentary on the state of ethics in America.

• “Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable”
  ~ Mussolini ~

Moral relativists are shocked to hear, I’m sure that there ideology, or lack thereof, is more fascistic than any other philosophy.

Can anyone answer the original question?