Source: The O.

My commentary: Since abortion is on the decline due to preference for the morning after pill, expect the anti-choice folks to step up BS about "KILLING 1-day old unborn babies" and that the pill is the most gruesome form of "abortion" ever.

Its only down to killing a million babies a year.

You notice Herb is no where to be found in this discussion. This started with Clinton. A Southern Baptist, he believed abortion should be safe, legal and rare as do I. He also knew the way to handle it was to educate rather than to shove some bible thumping law down everyone's throat. You can thank Clinton for this. Education, will be the death knell of abortion.

Anti-choice? You mean the folks who disagree with sucking out the brain of an the unborn?

Exactly whose choice is it to stick scissors in the skull of an innocent child?

Oh, yeah...it's the 'pro-choice' crowd.

Herb

This is a discussion about the morning after pill, not later term techniques.

@Aok Absolutely!

And abortions will continue to go down as soon as "abstinence only" sex education is shown the door in less than a year.

And, "anti-choice" is exactly right. You can choose not to have an abortion. You just can't handle that others don't see things as you and make a different choice, a choice that is guaranteed by our Constitution, and one that is settled law. It should be none of your concern. Not your pregnancy, not your body, and not your choice!

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

"...one that is settled law."

Hardly. The tide is turning and it's not in your favour.

First, partial birth abortion was banned. Next, we're going after the whole enchilada. I can't wait until Justices Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Ms. Ginsberg's replacement write their opinions.

Not since slavery has there been a human rights issue more important on behalf of innocent life. To the so-called 'pro-choice' left, the unborn child isn't even human, with no rights compared to a dog or cat.

Settled, indeed. I'm glad you think that. Please continue sleeping at the switch whilst Roe is overturned with relish.

Herb

Actually, a dog or cat has more rights than an unborn human.

Absolutely.

To the left, an unwanted preborn child's life is worthless.

Herb

Now Herb will just have to come up with a way to PAY for all the babies NOBODY wants WITHOUT raising my taxes anymore than they already are!!!!
It's a SOCIAL ISSUE Herb and that means it needs a SOCIAL PROGRAM that your SOOOOO against!!!!

To the EVANGELICAL EXTREME RIGHT, after the kids out of the womb it's worthless and needs NO MORE help from anyone.

Trixter, you're right. Not much of an adoption market for un-perfect babies from un-perfect situations, unless they're from overseas. The kids right here need people, too...thank goodness SOME people are willing to bring them home, while others will spend 10x the cash to import one...it's always made me wonder why.

"It's a SOCIAL ISSUE Herb and that means it needs a SOCIAL PROGRAM that your SOOOOO against!!!!"

Au Contraire, Monsieur Trixter. That's why Mr. Huckabee is my guy. He's pro-life, whilst caring for kids both pre-and-post birth. Better get a new talking point. That one ain't working.

Herbert Milhous Huckabee

Herb!!!!!!!
Then tell US ALL how your going ot pay for it???
Your talking points are ALWAYS the same no matter what!!! Your abortion issue is the same now as it was back 6 years ago!!!!!!

Herb I like that abortions are down. To be honest I wish it were zero.

A million abortions a year is actually a drop in the bucket to the 10 million children who will die of preventable starvation this year alone. Oh and 10 million died last year and the year before.

If you spout morality for the unborn, you should proclaim absolute injustice to those living who could be saved NOW!!

Trixter -

Don't worry. The Herbs of the world want to make sure that every single fetus comes to fruition and is born. That greatly increases the number of warm bodies that can be sacrificed for Bush's greed in Iraq!

So Herr Herb, if some girl gets raped and becomes prego, should she have to keep it? Keep in mind this hypothetical girl is only 15 but was viciously raped by a repeat offender. I personally feel that dude should be castrated!

I say it and say it, and no one listens:

Herb (and Nwokie) come in and frame the abortion discussion every single time, and everyone else kow-tows to them. They frame it by saying that a human being with full human rights exists at the moment of conception, and everyone scrambles around to defend a woman's right to have an abortion around that framing. And with that framing, anti-abortionists cannot lose.

Let's remember something folk - the court decision of Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, as much as Herb et.al may not like it. The Roe decision addressed prenatal life, and said:

1) if the fetus were defined as a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment then the fetus would have a specific right to life under that Amendment.

2) But it is not. The original intent of the Constitution (up to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868) did not include the unborn. The unborn have no Constitutional rights.

3) The Court in Roe was not tasked with, nor felt qualified to, determine when life begins. A quote from the decision: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

4) The Court only believed itself positioned to resolve the question of when a right to abortion begins. To that end, they stated that abortion can be regulated or restricted by the state after the third trimester "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother"


So when life begins is legally undefined, and perhaps undefinable. When Herb can give a sound, rational, and acceptable argument in the defense of his idea of when life begins, or he accepts mine, then I will engage in a discussion with him about abortion.

Until then, forget it.

And in the meantime, the burden falls to Herb to prove the Supreme Court of the United States wrong as to when viable life begins.

Noted and appreciated.

Another reason why teachers will never really get paid according to their true value to society -- too much intelligence taught to the masses result in a left leaning society! Better results occur for the anti-choice people when they spout off things like "murdered unborn babies" to the undereducated.

Education is the conservative's true enemy. This is why they want to underpay the profession.

Repeat:

So Herb, if some girl gets raped and becomes prego, should she have to keep it? Keep in mind this hypothetical girl is only 15 but was viciously raped by a repeat offender. I personally feel that dude should be castrated!

I think a repeat rapist should be executed.
But the baby didn't harm the mother, so why are you gonna execute him/her?

Nwokie, my 10:33pm post applies to you, too.

What is "alive" in the first couple weeks of pregnancy that would be "executed" in an abortion?

So the girl must allow her life to be dramatically impacted by being forced to keep and give birth to the product of a heinous act.

Oh, forgot to mention it was her dad that did the deed. So what now?

Each situation is unique and should be treated as such.

A wise man once said:

"There can be no justice as long as laws are absolute."

"Then tell US ALL how your going ot pay for it???"

Eliminate all the bogus and wasteful programs we spend millions on each year. Start here:

"$161,015,000 for projects in the state of Senate TTHUD Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and the district of House appropriator Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), including: $1,000,000 for the Washington State ferries over wireless water project; $550,000 for the Museum of Glass in Tacoma; $500,000 for the Seattle Art Museum for construction of the Olympic Sculpture Park; and $325,000 each for the Spokane Symphony for renovations to the Fox Theater, and the renovation and expansion of the Seattle Aquarium."

And as far as killing an unborn child because the expectant mother doesn't want it, whether from rape [which is a red herring and a tiny fraction of cases], two wrongs don't make a right.

Answer 'yes' or 'no' to the following situations:

A. The mother of a family of 14 is pregnant again. Her husband — the father of all 14 of these children — has a history of alcohol abuse and mental disorders which frequently causes him to abuse his other children. The mother herself is already worn out from trying to care single-handedly for her large family and doesn't feel she can care for another child at this point. On top of all this, two sons in the family also have a history of alcohol abuse, one of the children is in a mental institution, and none of the other children have steady, dependable jobs with which to support mom and dad. Abortion or Not?

B. A poor black family in the South is expecting a fifth child. This family, because of its skin color, already has difficulty receiving help and are already at the bare minimum poverty level. The outlook for their present children does not look bright. Abortion or Not?

C. A woman is engaged to a man some years older than she; she finds out that she is facing an unplanned pregnancy. The child she is carrying is definitely not the son of her fiancé, and he is worried for her sake and for their repution in their community. This child could put a serious strain on their relationship and on any future children. Abortion or Not?

Okay, everybody finished? Here are the results:

A. If you answered Abortion for A, congradulations! You just aborted Ludwig Van Beethoven!

B. If you answered Abortion for B, again, congradulations! You just aborted Martin Luther King, Jr.

C. If you answered Abortion for C, YOU WIN THE GRAND PRIZE! You, my friend, have just aborted Jesus of Nazareth.

Herb

My answer:

A: the mother's choice
B: the mother's choice
C: the mother's choice, and maybe some penalties for the man that forced this unwanted pregnancy upon her.

(Wow, there's an interesting topic of discussion: Did God rape Mary? Thanks for bringing that one up, Herb.)

If you feel a need to disagree with me, there's no need to get blasphemous, Edselehr.

Herb

So you have talked to Adams and the other writters of the constitution, and you know what they meant? At the time abortion was illegal, and how do you know they didn't mean for the constitution to include the pre-born ( I like that phrase better than un-born).

Wasn't my intention - you brought up the concept in your (C) example, I just typed it out loud.

But you can play the "what if" game lots of ways. Given the opportunity and knowing their futures, would you have aborted Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, etc.? Be honest.

Playing God is not my deal. That's akin to 'kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.'

Herb

(edit, to account for posts above)

Show me a viable self in the first few weeks, and I'll help you write some laws. Until then, our current understanding is not enough to deny women their own moral choices.

Going forward, I'm gonna limit my discussion to that topic period. After reading Ed's post, I went back through the archives. He's spot on, exactly right.

Where there is no self, there is no murder and there are no rights.

Actually, I'll expand that to alternatives and contraception too.

Seems to me, given how big of a pickle this is, prevention, in all it's forms, is priority number one! The right choice is to not get into this situation period.

That means contraception being widely available to anyone that needs it, period.

And, just like Vitaolgy said, Education being widely available to everyone that chooses to consume it.

Informed people with means and methods available to them are gonna avoid this mess, and that means sharply reducing abortion period.

I almost think the hard-line stand so many people take on contraception is just done to keep the abortion issue front and center, so there is a greater chance of just legislating it. Fuck that.

If we applied education, alternatives and strong prevention to the problem, abortion would be a minor issue in less time than we think. IMHO, that's the big fear right there.

When we get there, it suddenly becomes very difficult to leverage the issue in such a way as to get people to vote against their own interests.

I hate this topic for that reason more than any other. While we hash this crap out, we've got basic needs, here and now, for those living, not getting met. No nation in the world has an answer to this mess.

We aren't gonna get one either, because this is a problem we have AS A RACE.

The idea that somehow, we can "lead" by banning all abortions, as some sort of bizzare global advocacy to others, "not making the right choices", runs counter to the very ideas that we stand for in the first place!

Real Americans would apply themselves to the problem, marginalizing it to the highest degree possible, leaving freedom intact as much as is possible, until such time as the facts are in to justify doing otherwise. Doing otherwise, is playing God, BTW. God gave us free will, and our nation is built around that premise in like kind. No brainer.

I know we can fix it. All of us want to fix it. We can be the best in the world, but for extremists, like you Herb, getting in the way. It's gonna get in the way of our politics this year. I've personally seen way too much of how that all goes. Most everybody I know is in the same boat.

On that note, please, please run the Huckster. He's gonna be seen as the theocrat he is, and maybe then we can move on to some more pressing matters.

The understanding is there, technology is there, alternatives are there. There is absolutely no excuse, other than some self-serving ideological one, for doing otherwise.

That's it. Either demonstrate there is a self, early on, or at the moment of conception, or all bets are off, going forward on this topic, because it just does not matter until we know more than we do right now.

"Where there is no self..."

Oh, so YOU get to decide when life begins? That's exactly how the Nazis and pro-slavery crowd justified their erroneous positions: By attempting to deny the humanity of the innocent helpless. Those who seek to deny the self of others, are the most selfish.

Even the 'Roe' who filed Roe v. Wade, who was once so sure of when life begins, now admits SHE was WRONG.

Try and play God all you want. By denying natural law you're doomed to failure.

Herb

It all depends on circumstance. There are situations where abortion makes sense, just as there are situations where it does not. Most rational minds are able to analyze a specific circumstance and easily make the distinction, thus supporting the decision that matches the circumstance at hand. I believe that the people who argue against the concept of “individual circumstance” lack a comprehensive understanding of the inherent complexities and situational variation from one case to the next.

I believe that people should have the choice. But I also believe that too many irresponsible people abuse their rights of having this choice. There will always be circumstances, such as rape and illness, where abortion makes 100% sense. Regrettably, there will also always be heartless fools who use abortion like the rest of us use a condom. Thus, this controversial topic will always rest in a grey area lacking an absolute right or wrong judgment call.

Abortion should never be muddled by the influences of religion or law. It should be an unadulterated decision pertaining to the responsibility and capacity of an individual in their own unique circumstance. Even then, I’m sure someone will have a difference in opinion.

Well, that's on topic Herb.

We've got a woman pregnant three days. Where is the self? Show me.

"Playing God is not my deal. That's akin to 'kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.'"

Thanks for the answer. Let me reframe the question a little.

Would you decry the abortion of a preborn that would become a Hitler, or a Stalin?

Given that we are created beings, it's a pointless argument. Your question also presumes omniscience, hardly a human trait.

Do I wish that some people had not been born? Sure. But I have no right to pre-judge and sentence a heretofore innocent to death, lest I be guilty of prejudice and worse. Given nature and nurture, who's to say one won't over-ride the other, as in the case of Beethoven, Dr. King, or Jesus?

Being aware that I'm flawed yet not beyond redemption, I'm certainly not going to cast the first stone unto the death of the presumed innocent.

Herb

"Oh, so YOU get to decide when life begins?"

Point is, no one can. Not even you.

No.

I'm in favour of erring on the side of life.

The so-called 'pro-choice' side errs on the side of a death sentence.

Ironically, it's the left who is against the death penalty for convicted felons. They cite the small chance that the convicted may be exonerated.

Yet the INNOCENT unborn are given no such benefit of the doubt by abortion advocates, a glaring inconsistency among our leftist brethren.

Herb

Edselehr

I did appreciate your above post about the actual legal understanding of Roe v Wade.

It seems the blinders get put on in Herb's rational and are never taken off. Every post on abortion Herb has made I have countered with the moral issue of starving children already outside the womb. But he has never commented back to me.

Ed- you are so right about the way Herb and others frame the abortion issue. Narrow and filled with emotion with little regard for the laws of this land. The very thing Herb would say our military is fighting for in Iraq. What a paradox.

Because of the framing that Herb does on this issue he can pound it for all it’s worth, that equally important issues seem to fall by the wayside. It’s tactical and misleading of what other issues face humanity.

I'll never understand why you GUYS continue to bother engaging with Herb and Okie on this topic. It's pointless. And thankfully, their opinions are in the minority of both men AND more importantly, women in the US.

Go see "Juno" instead. A sweet, very funny movie, even if 90% of parents will never be that cool with a teen pregnancy. And 95% of teen (girls) are not Juno, but maybe it will open the door to parental acceptance of teen pregnancies with the end goal of adoption.

"..parental acceptance of teen pregnancies with the end goal of adoption."

Teen pregnancy presents many difficult issues and shouldn't necessarily be promoted, yet once a teen IS pregnant, allowing the child to be born, along with adoption considered, are indeed wonderful outcomes compared to abortion, which leaves one dead and one wounded.

Herb

"I'm in favour of erring on the side of life."

So you don't know when life begins, just erring on the side of caution?

Herb makes me think of that one lone child in the playground trying to ride the see-saw all by himself. Other kids used to play with him until they got tired of him jumping off of the thing all of the time.

You know Merk I appreciate the others who share how they feel I always learn something new from these exchanges. It actually helps me clarify my own position.

Herb gets into his abortion rants and forgets the bigger picture of the living that are dying at a horrendous rate, that is totally preventable.

Somehow morality from his perspective is selective.

http://perceptivetravel.com/images0706/Blinders.jpg

....Every post on abortion Herb has made I have countered with the moral issue of starving children already outside the womb. But he has never commented back to me.…

Chris, the difference I see here is that while there are tens of thousands of children starving to death, and many right here in the good old US of A, and it is terribly sad and I agree 1000% that we should be doing everything we can to prevent it, the starving kids are not intentionally being killed.

All human life is sacred, be it from the moment of conception to the moment of death, and with the exception of criminals found guilty of a capital crime, we should be doing all we can to preserve life.

Note: This is not a thread about the war. So don't go down that road about my last statement. That can be covered, and has, in too many other threads!

If any kid is starving in the US, it is because of parental neglect, with WIC, foodstamps, commodities etc.

"All human life is sacred, be it from the moment of conception to the moment of death, and with the exception of criminals found guilty of a capital crime, we should be doing all we can to preserve life."

That's your opinion within your framing. If I agreed with your framing, I might likely agree with you.


It could also be framed like this:

Tens of thousands of thinking, feeling, walking, talking, sentient kids that are starving, possibly to death, in the most rich and abundant nation in the world;

versus

having a woman end, by choice, the continued development of a small cluster of cells in her womb that may or may not develop into a human child, and are not conclusively an individual being by any common medical, philosophical, legal or theological standard.

With MY framing, which is the greater evil?

Let's not give evil a pass.

Evil is evil, whether obviously apparent or not.

It's arguably less bad to hit someone hard with a rubber mallet than with a machete. That doesn't make one good.

That's why the left gets flummoxed on this issue. Attempting to defend the killing of innocent life will ultimately frustrate any humane person.

Herb

To Herb:

How many drug babies have you adopted?

One and working on my second.

Herb

Good deal Herb.

I gotta beleive that there are circumstanses that would justify the necessity for abortion. Not just convienance but what if early in the pregnancy, a child is determined to be completely brain dead? Should the mother have to carry the child to full term or abort early in the pregnancy? What if the pregnancy will most certainly kill both the mother and child if not aborted, what then? Make the woman carry the child until both die? What constitutes life, cellular growth, brain activity, were is the line drawn?

Good questions, Darktemper. I don't know all the answers.

Following God is about love and we should look out for the innocent...that's my earnest belief. Perhaps that's why I'm a softie and appreciate Mr. Huckabee's clear and consistent pro-life position.

If it means paying more in taxes to care for the pre-born and needy kids, then some will call me a pro-life populist and not a Republican. So be it.

As Mark Hatfield was once quoted while speaking to a staff member: "The pro-life issue is one we're willing go down with." He was willing to accept political defeat for a cause he believed in. Much as I disagree with him on many things, I respect him for that.

Herb

I don't agree with you but I don't disagree with you. My stand on this is against those of convenience while allowing for those medically necessary or as the result from a heinous act.

Have a good one!

I may still read but won't post after this as throwing stones back and forth on this may wind up getting ugly, again.

What I'm seeing here is the morning after pill isn't murder. Right? After all the sperm merely poked its head in an egg and the pill denies the sperm an opportunity to create life in the first place.

Everything is a step in the process that creates life, and you can't just pick one point and say "Riiiiiiiight.....THERE! NOW it's a living human being!" Currently the legal system uses viability outside the womb to determine life, which is usually the 28th week but may be as early as the 24th week. The definition of life has changed again and again over time, with our improved abilities to detect life, or maintain it.

Back in the 1800's the unborn were determined to be alive when it "kicked", known as the quickening. No quickening, no life - and no sin if the pregnancy were ended prior to it. Today, since we can now detect pregnancy almost immediately, anti-abortionists have revised their definition of life.

I find it interesting that supposedly "steadfast" religious beliefs have continually changed and adapted to secular scientific advancement.

Skybill: "the starving kids are not intentionally being killed."

In many countries they are being starved to death intentionally by their governments, by those who are supposed to supply the food and a myriad of other willful acts. In many cases the US and other countries let it happen. So I stand by my statement about Herb's non-comment.

I did know that Herb has adopted in the past and I'm warmed by they thought of him and his wife doing it again. There is a level of respect I have for Herb and others on this thread like Missing who choose to make this commitment.

And like DT has stated, to further this conversation in stone throwing is futile.

There is a lot I think we assume on both sides of the abortion issue and I appreciate how Edselehr brought forth very clearly the legalities of this divisive issue.

Totally.

I'm there too. The teacher in him works wonders some times.

Yea, sometimes...right now I'm sitting here at my desk at school at 8pm on a Friday night digging through a stack or grading, grooving to some 1977-era Top 40 on ReelRadio. Gotta rewrite two finals tonight also.

But hey, I'm an overpaid government worker, so no problem.

"...anti-abortionists have revised their definition of life."

Nice try. To the many millions who understand that life begins at conception, tain't so. The revision was Roe v. Wade.

Herbert Milhous Huckabee

Why do you do that, Herb? You know that you are quoting me out of context.

In the mid 1800's it was generally legal (and accepted in society) to perform abortions, as long as it happened before the quickening - when the fetus can be felt moving in the womb - around 16-20 weeks. The word "quickening" means when signs of life are present. This term is also used in the phrase from the Bible "the quick and the dead" (2 Timothy 4:1) meaning "the living and the dead". Here it is clear that being "quick" means being alive, and that the "quickening" during pregnancy was for generations seen as the point at which life began in the womb.

Toward the late 1800's anti-abortion efforts were put forth by a cooperative effort between the churches of the day and the newly-formed American Medical Association (AMA). The AMA was looking for a societywide "medical crisis" to build it's reputation on, and in fact abortions were dangerous and deadly during those years. The church opposed abortion because they opposed the "obscene" nature of even discussing birth control, because of the sanctity of the unborn child, but also because they were against the power that any form of birth control gave to women over their own reproductive lives (a wife might begin "overlooking the duties imposed on her by the marriage contract.")

Yes Herb, over the years the Christian church has changed their position on when life begins.

(This post required a mere 3.75 minutes of Internet research. Thank you Tim Berners-Lee!)

From now on Herb will be known as the Framer. Thanks to our teacher union guy.

I don't carry H20 for the pontiff, but to suggest that all, or even most, Christians haven't believed that life begins at conception is highly suspect at best, outright false at worst.

You state that in the 1800's it was "generally legal (and accepted in society)..."

Nothing there about the Church.

Then there's this red herring: "Toward the late 1800's anti-abortion efforts were put forth by a cooperative effort between 'the churches'...[which churches and how many?]...and the newly-formed...AMA..."

Then you go into how "'the church' opposed abortion..."

So which is it? First You suggest 'the church' without naming any church, nor any numbers. It could be different denominations. It could be wildly different numbers.

3.75 minutes? Seems more like 2.5.

You're capable of better work. You get a C+, because you're civil and can put sentences together.

Herbert H.

Herb, I've been around the board long enough to know when you're beginning to feel like you are getting backed into a corner. You get defensive and you ratchet up the patronizing rhetoric. All the classic signs are in your above post.

However, I concede that I did not cite sources. Here is one of a few I found:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

Again, we're talking historically here - the 'church' (and I mean the Christian church, which includes any church that worships and follows the teachings of Christ) has gone back and forth on when life begins. For example, Pope Innocent III (1161-1216) stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life. This position was changed by Pope Pius IX in 1869 so that both "animate" and "inanimate" fetuses had souls.

And how does who you carry water for have anything to do with anything? You start sounding all Wayne-y when you take these discussions personally.

To paint Christendom as wholly accepting the teachings of the Roman church, however well intended, is erroneous. Ever hear of Martin Luther and the Reformation?

While the pope is influential, non-romanists have long disagreed with the Roman Catholic church on a variety of issues, especially in how Scripture is accepted. The Roman church sees tradition on a par with the Bible. Non-Roman Catholics disagree and see tradition as less important than the Good Book.

For example, important Roman Catholic traditions include 'apostolic succession' and 'papal infallibility.' At one time there were two popes, one Italian and one French. So much for papal infallibility and apostolic succession.

The point is that to those of us who use the Bible as the plumb line, a la Sola Scriptura, means non-Roman Catholics are sometimes at variance from what a papist might believe. While unity is nice, clarity of belief is important.

And since you cited Roman Catholic views as representing Christianity as a whole, it's important to understand Protestants and Roman Catholics sometimes come together on issues, like life. Yet almost as often, there is disagreement. That happens when some place tradition on a par with God's Word.

While I agree with some Romanist precepts, and am a big fan of Mother Teresa, I could also make many arguments against Roman Catholic teachings. And I would be supported by many Catholics, especially Orthodox Christians who are considered 'Catholic' even by Rome.

Herb

Herb...
YOU still have NOT found a way to pay for all the babies have you??? I don't think a SOCIAL PROGRAM is the way to pay for them!!!! MY taxes will keep going up!!!! As a Republican I'm for FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY and MORE SOCIAL programs is making GOVERNMENT BIGGER not smaller!
If you want ENDLESS SOCIAL PROGRAMS then you should become a LIBERAL and bend to the left! Don't INFECT MY Republican party with MORE SOCIAL PROGRAMS!!!!

"MY taxes will keep going up!!!!"

Not if you cut the fluff, as I noted before. Those aclu attorneys with their frivolous lawsuits cost you more than you realize. And the nea pushes their agenda which costs us all more.

Besides, if you can't support life itself, there's little else more important.

Herb

Nearly half the tax burden is for war. Everything else is in that other half. Lawsuits, if eliminated, have only the potential to impact your taxes by a few percent at best.

Herb...
Find a way to pay for YOUR program! You want a SOCIAL PROGRAM to pay to get the kid out of the womb but you DON'T want any to keep that kid alive???? WOW!
If you can't support life period then there is NOTHING to live for......

There's lots of fluff to cut at the Pentagon, I say cut away!

And, it's not universally accepted that "life begins at conception".

It didn't used to be that blacks and indians were universally considered human either.

And women couldn't vote either or wear pants in public. What's your point????

Jewish people were also considered by some to be less than human, Trixter. And some fanatics in the middle east still believe that.

The point is be wary of those who question another's right to exist.

And why are you in league with radical pro-abortionists? And you still want us to believe you're actually a republican?

Herb

I'm wary of those that wish to control other people's medical choices. Mind your own business.

Vit said it loud and clear Herb. And BTW Herb I'm NOT and I REPEAT NOT! in league with ANYONE! Specially not YOUR REICH WINGED EXTREME league. YOU don't have to believe that I'm a Republican EVER. I know what I stand for and have posted it many times. Don't like it??? TOUGH!

Expect to be challenged by a majority of republicans if you call yourself one whilst being fine with sacrificing the unborn.

Otherwise, register as a democrat...to them, the life of an unborn child is at best a grey area and entirely negotiable. Among their rabid PETA allies, a dog has more rights.

Herb

Plenty of fine Republicans are pro-choice, and many more claim to be pro-life but really aren't, as they'd probably have an abortion if the need arises and could keep it secret. The people like yourself that are so militantly against abortion are a small and extreme minority. While I admire your determination on ending abortion, I abhor your third world thinking. The majority support Roe v Wade, even if they are against abortion itself. The fact that you have to trot out pathetic analogies and accusations against those that disagree with you is proof positive you don't have a leg to stand on in this debate.

I suppose you favor animal cruelty and dog fighting and all that too, eh Herb? After all, those dastardly liberal PETA folks are anti-Christian! Even though the animals are largely defenseless, and have no say in the way they are being treated.

Try to do something to my dog. I dare you.

So you're a complete vegetarian who doesn't wear leather?

You wanna place the life of an animal on a par with a human, go right ahead. Hitler, too, was extremely kind to animals.

Herb

Don't lecture US on how to live our lives based on YOUR faith, and I will stop lecturing you on your sometimes inane comments.

Deal?

That's a problem, because like the abolitionist movement, the pro-life movement is promoted by people of faith fighting to protect innocent human life.

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

Herb

troll sez: "the pro-life movement is promoted by people of faith fighting to protect innocent human life."

Yep, sometimes they KILL people too. God is ashamed of them, no doubt.

Christians who murder violate the very tenets of the Bible.

Liberals who do the same are given a pass here.

Herb

Oh but the Christian Right wants to protect these fetuses ... so they can raise good Christian little boys and girls, who once they turn 18 can be sent to their deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan!

No.

But go ahead and try to deflect your position.
It only reveals how weak it is.


Herb

No sir, what's weak is how you use your religious faith as a crutch to justify your close-minded, bigoted, hateful viewpoints and to lambaste anyone who dares to think for themselves and have their own ideas on how life is, because it may be "against the word of God."

That is what is weak, Herb.

The sad part about what inflicts religious conservatives is the absolute stupidity in their approach. If they really cared about reducing abortion, they would shift their focus from the law to the person. Instead of advocating for complete sex education and complete availability of contraception, they would rather focus on third world laws of prohibiting abortion. As it's already been proven, the rates of abortions are steady whether the law allows it or not. Too bad the thick skulled "faith believers" are too ignorant to realize this.

the troll sez: "Christians who murder violate the very tenets of the Bible. "Liberals who do the same are given a pass here."

Nope. God isn't the closed mind freak you are.

"Nope. God isn't the closed mind freak you are."

Ploink!

Man I've wanted to use that for a long time.

Feels good doesn't it?

Blaspheme all you want.

He never retracted 'Thou Shall Not Murder.'

Herb

No, He didn't, Herb.

However, over the course of thousands of years since the Ten Commandments were written, MILLIONS and MILLIONS have been murdered savagely by organized religion, "In the name of God."

Spin THAT.

Hardly.

I carry no water for the pope, but compared to godless atheism, an event like the inquisition is trotted out and actually obliterates the socialist cause.

Hundreds of millions have been murdered by atheistic communists, including leftists like Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and Lenin.

Spin that, indeed.

Herb

Good grief Herb. Are you a dominionist or something?

There is more to the world than god or godless.

?

Herbert Huckabee

Now where in my last post did I say ANYTHING referring directly to the Catholic Church in name? Where did I even IMPLY solely the Catholic Church?

Heck, Protestants have killed Catholics "in the name of God" in Northern Ireland and England. Christian Serbs and Croats killing Muslim Serbs and Croats, again "in the name of God." Even Hitler (who was Catholic, BTW) invoked God in the justification of his heinous acts.

I didn't bring up the acts of Mao, Lenin, Stalin or Pol Pot. If you want to play that card, how about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead at the hands of George W. Bush?

Oh wait, Bush is a God-fearing man. That makes it acceptable.

No.

You stated that millions and millions have been murdered savagely by organised religion.

Far, far, far more have been murdered in the name of communism. And other than militant Islam, those who killed in the name of God did so in violation of their so-called creed. You wanna bring up Hitler? Then realize he promoted views diametrically opposed to the Bible.

'Thou shalt murder comes to mind.' Yet Herr Schickelgruber killed six million Jews, along with many millions of others as well.

Just because the guy stated he had a religious affiliation matters not. Did he adhere to said belief is the issue.

That was the reddest herring you guys have proffered yet.

Herbert Milhous Huckabee

However, over the course of thousands of years since the Ten Commandments were written, MILLIONS and MILLIONS have been murdered savagely by organized religion, "In the name of God."

Huh.... He has a point Herb....
WOW!

The HUCKster is toast

Yeah, and his point was pointless because those who murdered went against the tenets of said religion, Islam excepted.

A complete straw man.

You guys are losing it. But you're going to lose it even more at the next round of Supreme Court nominations.

I still like Mr. Bork for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat. He'd be good for a decade or two. That oughta reverse Ted Kennedy's leftist views really well.

Herb

You guys are losing it. But you're going to lose it even more at the next round of Supreme Court nominations.

You REALLY think that ANYONE in their right mind will overturn the Abortion rule? YOUR as nuts as I thought you were.

They said it couldn't be done for partial birth abortion.

Fait accompli.

Herbe' Villechez

God has been shaking his head for years over how we treat each other. Some using God to justify killing, others justify killing for political gain and control. Some just kill for the thrill of it. (sick)

Darfur, Rwanda, the Serbs....killing people seems to come naturally to us.

I don't like abortion but the current law of the land stands like it or not. If it gets over turned or the law changes we deal with it.

Let it be the will of people and not the supreme court.

40 million killed here in the US since Roe v. Wade, Chris.

And we say we're better than other nations?

The chickens are coming home to roost. God is not mocked. Whatsoever ye a man soweth, he shall reap.

Herb

A man pleaded with God.

"Dear GOD, why don't you send us men and women who can find a cure for cancer, aids and heart disease, who can help the poor, feed the hungry and who can stop war?"

GOD replied, "I did."

"But... but... where are they?"

"They came back to Me almost at once, for You aborted them."

Try these numbers Herb. 10 million children dead each year for the past 20 years from preventable starvation. Do you know what I mean by preventable? It means we can stop it if we choose too. But instead the US uses money for war (more killing of innocent lives).

Again I say, your morality is very selective and blind.

To this day you're so concerned about abortion you continue and I mean blatantly push aside the innocent that are outside the womb.

Don't play "God" Herb, you're lousy at it. I'm not here to change your mind, it's useless. I'm just trying to open your eyes to the other innocent you seemed to have purposely forgotten. That is shameful.

"Blessed are the peacemakers..." Sadly you're more of a trouble maker.

Making abortion illegal WILL NOT lower the amount of abortions. This is fact! Look it up!

If you want to end abortions, work to educate and provide contraception to those that need it.

And, as my personal experience shows, an embryo IS NO guarantee of life, so to say that 40 million babies have been "killed" is complete horse shit.

They said it couldn't be done for partial birth abortion.

THEY said that DUHbya was a good leader...

THEY were DEAD wrong!
Can't spell WRONG without the DUHbya.

Chris said: Let it be the will of people and not the supreme court.

EXACTLY!

Let’s put it up for a vote. If 50.001% of LEGAL voters say ban abortions, then the other 49.999% will have to deal with it.

If 50.001% of LEGAL voters say keep abortions legal, then the other 49.999% will have to deal with that too.


Sadly, I don't ever see this coming to a vote because BOTH sides are making too much money fighting for their respective position on it.

Skybill is correct. And that is sad.

How exactly is money made? I'm calling bullshit. And as far as I'm concerned, put it up for a vote because there is not enough of a majority to make abortion ILLEGAL. And because the law does not affect YOU, you can deal with it just fine as it is because no one forces you to have one.

I think the money is made because this issue is used for leverage to get other issues resolved in favor of substantial interests.

Here is the money, right here:

If you can convince somebody that abortion is THE issue, then you can get their vote on any number of things harmful to them.

So, invest a lot of dollars punching that point home, and see the returns in terms of policy (market rules) that favor substantial interests at the expense of the people, in general.

That one value judgement is worth billions.

Chris, I can't make you agree with me that abortion is a moral tragedy.

But insisting that I don't care about the born flies in the face of my life experience as an adoptive parent. I mention that to illustrate how my actions support the unborn AND born.

I expect that kind of stuff from partisan secularists, but not from you.

And since when is the belief that abortion ends a human life mutually exclusive of caring about children?

Herb

"Let’s put it up for a vote. If 50.001% of LEGAL voters say ban abortions, then the other 49.999% will have to deal with it...."

No no no no no no!

You're taking us back to where this all started. We passed laws by the duly designated representatives of the people (state legislators) and banned abortion in certain states. People who were not part of this majority (pregnant women who wished to have an abortion) felt their Constitutional rights to privacy and self-determination had been violated. The LAWS banning abortions was put on trial by the Supreme court (Roe v. Wade) and based on that court's interpretation of the Constitution, and the LAWS was seen to violate individual rights, and were summarily null and void. Then the court set the conditions when abortion can be made illegal (in the last trimester).

The point here is:

1) Fundamental, inalienable rights should never be determined by a majority vote of the people. If the right to have an abortion is protected, or if it is unprotected, that should be determined by the Constitution.

2) The abortion issue is now Constitutional and beyond simple legislative action. The two ways to overturn Roe would be to have the Constitution re-interpreted by today's Supreme Court, or to amend the Constitution with clear language that makes abortion illegal (actually "unconstitutional").

We should never have our basic rights determined by popular voting. If we did, our basic rights to privacy, speech, self-protection would change as often as the latest clothing fashion or popular TV show. These rights need to be enshrined in a Constitution that is very difficult to alter.

How exactly is money made?

The same way ANY group supporting ANY position makes money. Donations, sponsors, fund raisers, volunteers, etc.

But, you make it sound like people are getting rich off of abortions, and I don't believe that to be the case.

The only people getting rich is people like Planned Parenthood that get tax dollars, and I'm sure that there are others too.

Planned Parenthood should not receive any tax dollars. They are a corporation, let them generate their own revenue.

I'm not picking on just Planned Parenthood. NO for-profit corporation should receive tax dollars as a dole out.

Edit Add Correction: I didn't know that Planned Parenthood was a non-profit. However, I stand by my belief that they should not get tax dollars.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200706/CUL20070615a .html

So-called 'planned parenthood's' ratio of adoptions to abortions is also dismal.

So Skybill, are you as adamant about Planned Parenthood not receivng tax dollars as you are about Intel, Exxon, etc, receiving tax dollars?

Intel, Exxon, etc should not be receiving tax dollars either.

Why should the taxpayer subsidize corporations?

They are in business to make a profit. If they can't, then they do like anybody else, go out of business.

If a corporation gets some kind of tax break or grant to develop a product or service that they will profit from, then the very first money made from said product or service should go to repay the grant or taxes that were deferred.

Reading suggestion:

Free Lunch by David Cay Johnston

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealthiest-Themselves-Government/dp/1591841917/ ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201128075&sr=1-1

But insisting that I don't care about the born flies in the face of my life experience as an adoptive parent.

Then you should be for MORE programs that HELP America instead of standing with the MEN that HURT America!!!!!!! You favor the MEN in Washington that do NOTHING BUT ruin america. SHAME ON YOU!

?

Herb

?
That's what I thought....
Right on cue!

Men?
You mean like Condoleeza Rice, Darlene Hooley, Dianne Feinstein, Patti Murray, Maria Cantwell, Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi?

Herb

Persons...
That better???
ALL OF THEM!!!!!!!

So Herb when we pull a strong left and you pull a strong right shouldn't that leave loads of room in the middle?

Not the mushy middle, but the middle where compromise, negotiation and real hard realities are fought for those who voted in our representatives?

You want to stack the Supreme Court with right leaning justices for one reason, overturning Roe v Wade. Correct? Where's the balance? Where's the ability to hear the other side of the issue?

You can't lean a heavy load to one side for too far for it will tip over, and then you have a bigger mess.

Why is it so hard for you and I to come to the middle ground?

I would prefer you stay away from cute little one liners like " there's only road kill in the middle of the road." I want some concrete stuff bro.

What can you give up and still get most of what you politically desire? It's not going to be perfect and I won't be totally happy too, but if it gets the job done, is that not what we're both ultimately trying to achieve. What's best for all?

I'm not asking you to agree or even hold any of my beliefs in your hands, I'm asking for real dialogue that we can all respect and live with.

"Where's the balance?"

Fair enough. When the issue is life itself, I'd say it's desirable to be biased in favour of life.

"What can you give up and still get most of what you politically desire?"

I've stated it here. Higher taxes, going more green, all kinds of socialistic stuff, in exchange for life.

But to show how radical the left is, they're not willing to do what you ask me to do: compromise. So who's truly inflexible?

Herb

I guess our definitions of inflexible are different. But I attribute that to our different life experiences.

There had to be some point growing up where you started making your own decisions and drawing your own conclusions. Whenever that was you had to formulate how you perceived life.

How does that time in your life compare to now? Were you ever on the "other side" of an issue until you found information that made you change your mind?

"It’s desirable to be biased in favor of life. " Why? (I know seems silly to ask...but I do want to hear you out)

"It’s desirable to be biased in favor of life."

On it's face, that statement would call for a ban on all war. Yet you can step away from that statement to a degree when you feel the war is "just".

Can there be similar flexibility from you on other "life" issues?

(sorry, didn't mean to intrude - you and Chris are having a great conversation - please continue...)

Agreed. Please do.

"It’s desirable to be biased in favor of life. " 'Why? (I know seems silly to ask...'"

With the utmost of respect and sincerity, isn't it reasonable to wonder how the bar ever got lowered so far that we question if it's desirable to favour life?

To address Edselehr's comment I oppose war. I assume Edselehr does too, but he and I would likely agree that Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo all needed to be stopped. There are very few justifiable reasons for war. One is the defense of the innocent. If we could leave Iraq today without the slaughter of even more innocents, I'd say 'Bring 'em home this minute.' I also believe all our troops in Germany and other self-sufficient countries should leave.

While the issue isn't to question the value of life, the answer is to protect it.

Herb

"There are very few justifiable reasons for killing. One is the defense of the innocent."

Sorry to interrupt here.
But does that defense extend to someone like Eric Rudolph?

Anyone convicted of first degree murder after a fair trial.

Herb

I don't understand that answer.

Basically, I asked if someone like Eric Rudolph was justified for commiting murder in the defense of the innocent.

And let's not limit it to the secular law.
Is it justifiable in the eyes of God?

Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes at all!
Corporations can only do 2 things with profits, pass them to the stockholders as dividends, which are taxed at a higher rate than most corporate taxes, or use it to grow, increase3 jobs etc, which is a good thing for the country.

If Corporations paid no taxes the economy would be much better.

If corporations are allowed to act as persons for certain limited purposes—most commonly lawsuits, property ownership, and contracts - then they should also carry the responsibility of paying taxes. With rights come responsibilities.

Nwokie,

Did you hijack this in an effort to get Herb off the hook on the defense of Eric Rudolph?

Just curious.
It seems so off topic.

Actually, I thought I was on another thread. I screwed up, what can I say?

Understood.
Been there, done that.

"I don't understand that answer. Basically, I asked if someone like Eric Rudolph was justified for commiting murder in the defense of the innocent."

You mean like 'justifiable homicide,' akin to killing an SS officer who continued murdering Jews? I presume the courts are even-handed and would have considered every circumstance. Therefore, the answer is simple. Once convicted of the crime, the sentence must be considered just. One caveat would be if new information comes out on appeal.

Herb

WOW.
You're dancing all around this.

But, reading between the lines I think I get the gist of what you're true feelings are, and I find it pretty chilling.

As a wise man once said, (Baretta) "Don't do the crime, if you don't want to do the time".

Mohammed Atta was willing to "do the time" as it were.

As a wise singer (Sammy Davis, Jr.) once sang, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

You mean like 'justifiable homicide,' akin to killing an SS officer who continued murdering Jews?

WTF???
How about the Bush administration trying to JUSTIFY the KILLING of INNOCENT women and CHILDREN in Iraq?