I suppose there are anti abortion folks in South Bend recently but the deeper issue was raised years ago by a Notre Dame Priest in his book, Dying in the Light. That would be whether or not Notre Dame could resist the loss of it’s identity as a Catholic School. The principled folks who resist this can be found on the net at Project Sycamore and the graph on their title page shows catholics, nominally and real at just a bit over 50% of their faculty. A secondary, but important problem is that if Notre Dame wants to be a Catholic institution then it cannot be separated from the bishops and the Pope but must be in union with them according to Ex Corde Ecclesia(an interesting document penned by Pope John Paul the Great). Last, honorary degrees ought not be given to affirmative action hires with no track record of any accomplishment and in conflict with the authority of the bishops. It is a bit like jews giving Hitler an award for anything.
As for abortion, it is a stain on your dress but it is your dress to wear. I don’t think it attractive but there is no disputing matters of taste. As you age you will learn that abortion is a form of racial genocide and that folks of color, anent your suggestion, have found Catholic schools their best escape from government imposed (like IPS)poverty.

Oh, pascal………it is great that we live in a country where we can express our views no matter how tangled they might be. Abdul, I think you hit the nail on the head on two points. We need to improve on preventing unwanted pregnancies via methods other than preaching abstinence, Secondly, most of the protestors would not life a finger to help an existing child. They are too wrapped up in their dogma and trying to get attention to score poltical points. They dont have time to help tutor a struggling child. They dont have time to be a mentor or role model to a child who may not even have a family or a fractured family. Most are so vehement in their support of capital punishment that they frequently brag that they would pull the switch or insert the needles themselves. That whole movement is filled with hyprocrisy.

Somehow I have to believe that if President Obama were just another pro-choice President asked to offer the commencement address at Notre Dame, the opposition to his selection would not be as vehement as it is. Not only does Obama support termination of a pregnancy within its earliest stages, which is how many individuals, even Catholics find themselves in the “pro-choice” camp, but he has embraced legalizing the most violent, despicable, unthinkable murderous activity-infanticide. The partial delivery of a fully viable human being, which has its brain stabbed upon presentation to the outside world is grotesque and barbaric. That is the”extreme position” you should have been referring to. Late stage abortion’s status as a legal activity blackens the soul of our country . We owe this moral stain to elected officials like Obama and Indiana’s own deceased Julia Carson, who have promoted or voted for its legalization.
All this is to say, that it is understandable that some might view having President Mengele, I mean Obama, offer words of wisdom for a future life well lived, to those who made into the world without a knife to the brain, to be offensive.
As to preventing unwanted pregnancies-c,mon Abdul. Just about any pre-pubescent youngster can get their hands on condoms, birth control pills, patches, etc. These are offered free to all comers(pardon the pun)who unashamedly walk into any school or free health clinic or Planned Parenthood operation. Kids-let alone, adults, know where to get these devices and they’re not afraid to use them. Most are too lazy to, though.
Also, just because you don’t know them, doesn’t mean that those people protesting the taking of millions of human lives, don’t offer their resources to help the weakest and most vulnerable in our society. There are churches on almost every street corner in our city. Most of them don’t just open their doors on Sunday mornings. During the week, they are filled with volunteers doling out food to those without, clothing, school supplies, tutoring, coaching for recreation programs, etc. And there aren’t enough fingers on my hands and feet to count the people I know who have added to their already sizable or grown families through adoption.
I’m sorry the powers that be at Notre Dame didn’t consider before hand how their invitation might spoil the day for so many of the life embracing Catholics associated with the school.

I’ve looked at abortion polling a lot. Actually, I think you are misinterpreting the 53% number. So 53% of the people say they believe that abortion should be allowed in “some circumstances” which you are interpreting as a pro-choice position. So a person who supports abortion only when the mother’s life is in danger, or even rape or incest, would be classified as “pro-choice” since they support abortion in “some circumstances.” That would make even the Pope “pro-choice” because he doesn’t oppose abortion to save the mother’s life.
.
But should those people be classified as “pro-choice?” They are against 98% of the abortions that are performed, yet the pro-choice advocates regularly lump them in the category of people who support abortion rights. You’ve done the same thing here.
.
If you ask people if they support Roe v. Wade, you get a majority who say yes. However, if you ask them if they support the holding of Roe v. Wade, which is a constitutional right to abortion on demand through 6 months of pregnancy, a strong majority don’t support that. That leads to the obvious conclusion that people don’t know what Roe v. Wade stands for.
.
Doo you know what demographic group is the most supportive of abortion rights? Young men. Actually men overall are more supportive of abortiion rights more than women.
.
When I went door to door running for the House on the NW side in 2000, the most frequent question was my position on abortion. During the primary stage, I hit all Republicans. Not a single person who asked me my position turned out to be pro-choice.
.
After winning the primary, I moved on to the general election stage, hitting the doors of voters with indepedent or weak Democratic voting histories. Again, the same question I was asked the most was my position on abortion. Shockingly to me, not a single person who asked me my position turned out to be pro-choice. Translation: regardless of the polling, abortion is a voting issue to pro-lifers much, much more so than for those who support abortion rights.
.
Unfortuantely the Supreme Court took this issue away from legislatures where reasonable compromises could have been reached.

>or tutoring a kid whose father abandoned the family and the mom works and is never home?
.
You’re right. Better to tear an embryo apart and suck it in a sink than to face a fatherless life.
.
And if that baby survives its dismemberment, yah, better to just put it to the side and allow it to die versus having it grow up to have a fatherless life.
.
>et pregnant by making sure they had access to appropriate contraception
.
Are you insane? The schools are practically handing out contraceptive information and devices in first day school packets. Yet, the fatherless birth rates (especially among Blacks) continue to rise. It’s like smoking. If they haven’t learned by the time they’re young adults then either they’re incapable of learning or are choosing to smoke.
.

>Secondly, most of the protestors would not life a finger to help an existing child.
.
Stats please!

Can we agree that preventing unwanted pregnancies and providing appropriate and timely prenatal care is a first step worth taking and funding?
.
.
As Abdul writes, “Of course if we would spend more time making sure people didn’t get pregnant by making sure they had access to appropriate contraception and vigorously went after the deadbeat fathers for child support collection, we could go a long way to preventing unwanted pregnancies.”

This issue will likely be a dividing point for many years to come. It is difficult to find a clear answer to the point of what philosophy the majority of people hold: yes, either:yes but or no but; no. It is many cases very simply an issue that some people can never accept anything but the yes or no position. Being open minded or not is in this case just not an option for some. Should this be solely a personal choice or a matter of law (law either allowing or forbidding). I would differ with the point that the Supreme Court should never have taken a stand–the stand in simplest term simply gave no endorsement but simply gave the right as a personal option. A contrast sometimes exists–we promote democracy and freedom of —, then seek to make a law allowing only one position.
Many societies have faced major difference over time and either came to a situation where a law prevailed (even if dissent continued but within limits) or the society fell apart. In a matter of minutes anyone could list several major items that meet this point. Right and wrong views will remain a personal point.

While the last sentence of this post is a very decent sentiment and well said; pro life folks are lifting / raising their first amendment voices to protect children who do exist in vitro but don’t say much. Survival or “viability” of the born is no less dependent on care received, from crib rafting through childhood. Much as I enjoy National Lampoon, they don’t have any answers to these problems. “They’re going to do it anyway,” is a weak excuse to do less than more; for children we “protect” with all manner of consumer protection laws when they’re toddlers, but fail with a substandard public “education system,” that will somehow, miraculously teach them the birds & bees. We have people EMPLOYED in the public education system (supported by “volunteered” tax dollars, collected upon the life and times of those who earned them), who sugar foot resumes which assert they know what they’re doing. It’s results we don’t have, in any way commensurate with those takings or “volunteered” dollars / time / life. We have a performance and not a “volunteer” problem.

An always interesting debate….

1. I think we are all pro Choice and I can prove it.

2. If you are so called pro life do you support the advancements of pre natal testing? If you do you are not really pro choice…

3. I have a son with Down syndrome and shake my head at these discussions. Knowing that the current termination rate for positive pre natal testing for Down syndrome is over 85%. These folks are not all so called pro choice liberals but include pro life catholics and yep I have the facts not just the talking points. You can even go read Sarah Palins own words on the this subject where she admits her faith was very tested after they received the news. So it’s not so clear cut is it folks.

4. Paul, I don’t know you and have never met you but if you think I believe the majority of people you talked to at thier door step had abortion as thier number one issue…….well I think you have the party line down pat.

Peace

On teaching the birds and bees in school: any number of private schools never teach all the biology of sexual reproduction and certaintly not the prevention of pregnacy if it is not consistent with abstaining. Public schools(“government schools”) are subject to local school board mandates which are often dictated by an issue in the election of board members (basically one issue voting sometimes). Some school boards do not allow for any presentation of anything but abstaining to avoid pregnancy. Morality is not handled well in most churches or homes in that most often simply based on “no” –thy shall not do. This does not in the real world counter either popular culture or raging hormones.

Look, the schools can’t even teach reading so who are we trying to fool? Have you ever heard of pro choice Muslims? Americans are prisioners of what they think they know and what they know is severely limited by a biased media. Example, we had hostages taken in Iran years ago. What enraged the mob? They had raided the local Planned Parenthood offices and what they learned there they took for American policy. Only then did they focus their anger on Americans. Did you read that in any American media? Nope. How many thousands of Americans have been killed by Muslims since because the the Muslims the Great Satan is Planned Parenthood, a government agency or it should be as it would fold up without government dollars. And, to the Muslims of clear sight this attack upon them and their life style is a Jewish operation and so increases their hatred of Jews. It is an open question as to whether or not Abortion in America is a Jewish operation-it does seem to be their gift to the rest of us in many respects, not the least of which is financial support to pro abort political sorts and the demonizing of any pro lifers who might wish to say, run in any democrat primary. Your regular Jew is not likely proud of the role of other Jews in this situation and those of the orthodox persuasion are nearly Muslim in their abhorance of the practice.

Pascal: check the abortion policies in muslim countries–in some the abortion rate is as high or higher than in this country. The topic of allowing abortion and even birth control are not –repeat not–universal among various muslim groups. Attempting to make this a christian, or jew or muslim issue is not a conclusive statement as many “non believers” hold very conservative views on the issue and in every religious group there are members who find conflict with the prevailing dogma.

Schools are prevented by state law from distributing condoms or giving info on contraception. They have to suggest the student go to Planned Parenthood. Those of you who write about the schools handing out condoms are once again…dead wrong.

It’s funny how abortion supporters like to call themselves pro-choice when killing the unborn is the only area where they feel the citizenry should have a choice.

Regardless, our president thinks it’s okay to allow a baby who survives an abortion to die– OUTSIDE THE WOMB, ABDUL!!! So save your defintion of conservatism! His pro-infanticide history is indefensible-or at least should be. We reap what we sow. The university deserves whatever the fallout is. And, indeed, so does the entire nation.

Typical liberal crap, Greg. You stand up for the rights of child-killers, yet have no problem with the most innocent among us being killed out of convenience. On which side of this argument is the real hypocrisy?

the fact that your marriage was over a long time ago, (question to you if it was your wife), does not change the fact that your baby was aborted……

At least I won’t have to worry about child support.

Wow, Abdul. You intentionally stepped on the third rail. Very interesting.
.
While I have very strong feelings on the abortion issue, I believe that it’s only used at the national level to influence opinion. Since it’s only used to press buttons, that means that the Notre Dame issue has been promoted only as a political distraction from more pressing issues. Like economic collapse, torture, criminal activity among current and former administration members, and an escalation of US military presence and fighting on expanding fronts in the war to establish dominance by global finance over Central Asia.

The abortion debate has raged for decades. It will not cease anytime soon. All are better served when words like “infanticide” and “President Mengele” are eschewed.

Do you really think you win over ANYONE in the middle, or undecided, with crap like that?

Abortion as a political issue is decided and Roe is the law of the land. Until and unless a case surfaces, which is granted cert, that challenges the Roe ruling, the law of the land will not change. Nor should it.

I’m always amazed at the (mostly) white (mostly unmarried) men (i.e., priests) who want to make this a third-rail political issue. Think about that for a minute.

I’d be much more comfortable if and when Roe is ever re-opened, the Court has more than one female. But that’s unlikely, or, at best, there will be only two.

Kinda odd. This white male will not weigh in on the issue any more.

As far as I know, Life Chains on Meridian are done on Sundays. Muslim teachings on abortion are almost exactly the same as those of Orthodox Jews-we know the lowest common denominator of humans is sin but the teachings are the ideal, and, I’ve never read where abortion was huge in Muslim countries and have to question the assertation. Part of the Notre Dame stupidity is that Mary Ann Glendon was to be honored, in part, for her work with Muslim countries in the past to ensure that fools like the United Nations did not enshrine abortion as some sort of human right. She was also once talked about as being Notre Dame’s next Chancellor but declined that as well as the odious Notre Dame latare medal(Honors from Notre Dame are considerably cheapened these days). By the way, it ought not be a 3rd rail. It takes some courage to step up to any plate and take a cut at the ball. If we would but hold political sorts to a batting average instead of some imagined perfection we would all be better off. If you actually could read some of Bin Laden’s statements about the Great Satan you would understand that Muslims are happy to fight in defense of their morals and to behead Americans, in particular, who would force their craziness on Muslims. I am surprised that no one knew what enraged the mob in Iran to attack Americans but I guess I shouldn’t be since debate here is under such childish protections.

Yes, I use the word ‘infanticide’. And, Yes, I am using the word as it is defined. What term would you use to define the act of killing live babies? Far be it from me to assault the sensibilities of those who defend such barbarism.
Just keep calling the unborn ‘unviable tissue mass’ and sleep well tonight.

By the way, TA, Roe is a pro-life advocate now. Imagine that.

Some people including several who have commented on here never learn that you do not convince people of your pointof view by calling them names and the use of ridicule…usually just the opposite happens…they drive people away from their view….so rant on…….name call, demonize…disrespect others …..you are hurting your own cause.

Abortion and Islam–paper written in 2007 by Leil Hessini, Morocco—a few figures as estimated number of abortions and female deaths related to badly handled abortions: 5 year estimates of abortions: Algeria–718,670; Egypt–2,079,216, Iran–2,590,681; UAE–78,770; Iraq–893,285 and for every major Islamic country. And the Islamic official view on abortion varies by different times and different sects with a common thread involving up to 5 months and other teaching above that time. Again, this is an issue that is not one that any religious or nonreligious group has a 100% veiwpoint and live by it.

“My argument is that if we’re at stage, our marriage was over a long time ago.” Abdul that is a NON-ANSWER, it is a dodge. The question isn’t about the marriage (which is also irrelevant to the question) the question is about the father’s parental rights to the (potential) child. This is an area of the law which is skewed toward the female. How is it just for a female to deny a male from becoming a father, yet be permissible to force him to be a father against his wishes? (The “birth-control” response is no answer either since it ought apply to the woman as well.) I’m not advocating forced abortion, but I certainly would advocate granting an injunction against abortion (provided the mother’s physical health is not endangered) if the father is willing to raise the child as the primary care-giver. There is not parity here between the sexes and this is a complex issue to be sure. Like the majority of Americans, I’m for legal abortion, but with reasonable restrictions.
By-the-by, I see that Maurice didn’t go back to DC but is working for SLU in IP licensing or some such.

So, Greg, you’re saying that because your feelings are hurt you’ll be less likely to defend the lives of those most vulnerable among us? “Those meany pro-life people called me names, so I’m now more pro-abortion than ever”. Now that’s courage! The strength of your convictions is overwhelming.

Wow. We got Bin Laden roped into the conversation here.

Amazing.

Yeah, Rico, I read about Ms. Roe’s conversion. More power to her. The court ruling is still constitutionally correct. She is completely entitled to her conversion, and I applaud her for it, but the legal principles are solid. She is not bound by the constitution–the Justices were.

I know a few women who’ve had abortions. None would do it again. (Who would?) But again, each came from a background similar to mine: white, middle-class, somewhat educated. I’d never want an abortion for a loved one of mine, and yes, that decision has faced my family.

The whole Notre Dame thing could’ve been lessened, in my book, but withdrawing the honorary degree. I don’t know why the White House didn’t offer that up. It would’ve softened the blow, and the university would’ve been able to firmly stand on its “free speech” mantle with integrity.

Sometimes ego goeth before sanity.

Jack: be careful about the abortion figures you quote. Google it. You cna find any number to fit your argument. Sadly.

No serious legal scholar defends the “reasoning” of Roe V. Wade and hundreds of them LAUGH at the simplistic fools who signed their names to the ABORTION. Legally, we have murdered some 55,000,000 souls which is much more that the Jews who were murdered, also legally…very much legally. So much for lawyers in Germany and here.

Pascal, join the club of those who laugh at SCOTUS decisions. Like Bush v. Gore. Speaking of ridiculous decisions.

Roe was decided on thin legal grounds, but, over time, an overwhelming number of Constitutional scholars agree with its premise.

Why equate this with the Holocaust? It’s an insult. Kinda stupid actually.

Of course, pro-abortion advocates don’t want a comparison drawn between the Holocaust and abortion. In fact, most liberals don’t like the term ‘evil’ used either. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

No, Rico, it’s really quite different. I’m pro-choice. Those who are not, in reality, are anti-choice.

You don’t agree with the choice. I get that. Actually, it’s a very close call for millions of folks. And I, for one, completely understand the views of those who oppose abortion.

Have you even read Roe, Rico?

The Holocaust was the conscious decision of a group of Nazis to murder other adults. Millions of them. Productive adults, who were murdered solely because they worshipped in a particular way.

Equating that with abortion diminishes both issues.

I’ve seen that some on the far right revel in taking a piece of an issue, and equating it to something completely unrelated, to garner attention or something. I don’t really get it.

Stick to the facts, Rico. Your view will win more support. The fine points of SCOTUS’s Roe decision, are certainly open to debate and review. Times change.

But you won’t get much attention bringing up Mengele & Co.

I did not bring up Mengela, TA.
Let’s say it like it is. You support a woman’s right to murder her unborn child, if she so chooses. How about this fact? By taking a mere two hour drive to Kentucky, a woman can murder her unborn child up to 26 weeks into her pregnancy…..You’re right. Times have changed. A perfectly healthy fetus has an excellent chance of surviving outside the womb at that age with proper care. Pro-abortionists love to use semantics to ease their guilt on the issue, but this is the reality of today. Liberals like Hillary Clinton believe it should be a woman’s choice up to the point of birth. Of course, Obama supports letting an infant die outside the womb if that child survives an abortion. ‘Pro-choice’ or not, if you believe this is acceptable, then I hope you’ve made peace with your God. You’re gonna need help in the hereafter.

The problem with most who argue vehemently against abortion, is that they fail two “deadly sin” tests of their own in their frantic efforts to change abortion laws.

And just a personal opinion, but anybody who throws out the terms Nazi or Holocaust in any argument has already lost that argument.

Rico—there is no reply available that would change your views on this issue and anything related to concepts of how you came to hold these. You have all the rights of an American citizen to believe and seek to put in place your philosophy. BUT others have a right to express their view and to defend their reasons for it. You have every right to seek to get in place legislators and even judges who will determine your way as right. But others have the same rights in the matter. To go to level of demeaning the view of others is not in keeping with concept of meaningful debate. I respect your right to hold a particular philosophy but agree or disagree with you does not change that level of disagreement should always be civil.

I’ve been following the “conversation” here with a somewhat bemused interest. Not because I take the topic lightly – the opposite is true. My bemusement is because it’s apparent that so may people who post here are motivated by politcal dogma, religion, or social rationalizations. In other words, facts are not a factor.
.
With that in mind, I’ll by lunch for the first person on this page who can prove to me when individual life begins.

Lunch? That’s it. WHAT – A – CHEAPSKATE!

Something that might well rank at the top of the scientific discoveries of all time, and you offer lunch?!? And, probably fast food at that!

ROFLMAO.

Humane culture would promote better earlier choices (i.e. contraceptive conscience, healthy relationships & reason over impulse & emotion) rather than template a counterfeit standard that excuses later & lesser “choices;” which expand the nanny state & perpetuate failure or socialism. Experience should count for something, even if it requires baby boomers to confront the errors & hypocrisy of their imperfect generation.

Jews were legally defined as not being persons in Germany by its duly elected democratic government under legal theories quite similar to current American ones. As Jews were not, then,persons they were insects. Legally, it is the same theory as Roe V Wade brought to you by legal theorists quite at home in Nazi Germany and now here.
Shorebreak need only consult any old textbook about embryology. As to proof I think he should admit now which or what authority he is willing to accept. No one wants to waste time with those who are too cheap to buy(I assume you meant buy vs by) a decent lunch or who will go down the invicible ignorance route setting themselves up as the only authority.
The best book on the subject and directly on point is The Concentration Can, by Jerome Lejeune available at one time from Ignatius Press. It is also a remarkable finger in the eye of our lousy lawyers and a legal system that has long been off its foundations.

Okay. I’m on your side now, Jack. From this point onward, I will defend to my death the right of an individual to kill an abortion doctor.

The problem with your side on this issue is that you refuse to differentiate between right and wrong by simply declaring that a difference of opinion exists. The current leadership believes in partial-birth abortion and even post-birth abortion, removing the issue of when life begins from this argument.
Now, where does the word ‘civil’ apply?

“In other words, a common sense approach; something that seems to be lacking when individuals adopt an extreme position.”

Why is it that everything is “common sense” only when a person agrees with just that set-up?

“Personally, I am pro-choice with reasonable restrictions such as parental consent and notification with appropriate judicial bypass and no public funding unless the life or physical health of the mother is in danger, etc. … Of course if we would spend more time making sure people didn’t get pregnant by making sure they had access to appropriate contraception…”

Seriously, how hard is it for people to get the birth control pill, or use condoms? Face it, too many people opt for the cigarettes than the condoms. Not only that, the idea that teens, who seem to be focused on getting totally wasted, are going to use birth control if it is just handed to them, is laughable. They will likely be to intoxicated to think about birth control. Is the lady from planned parenthood going to go around and physically put on the condoms of the high school kids who are drunk and about ready to have sex? Is she going to show up every other Friday to make sure the drunk 14 year old takes her birth control pill…which _has_ to be taken every day?

I could careless if abortion were legal or not. The only thing I ask is the following: Equal rights for men. If the woman can kill the would be human, then guys should at least have a window of opportunity to “abort” their parental obligations. No child support, no rights to the child…ever.

Vangianguard – gimme a break, brother. I don’t have an extra $10K lying around. The answer IS out there. What do you want me to do – give up my car? At least I’m throwing out a challenge that I can make good on. I don’t see anyone else doing that. The offer will be a $15 dollar gift certificate to a decent establishment.
.
To pascal, in order to eliminate any innuendo or opinion, I’ll accept any peer reviewed authority from a recognized scientific publication.
.
Here is my premise, which follows standard toll road logic: if you exit a toll road and you’ve lost your ticket, you must pay the maximum possible toll as though you entered the road at it’s beginning. There’s no argument, correct? By the same token, if there is no scientifically defined point at which life begins, we must assume that life begins at conception.
.
Prove me wrong and I’ll send you a gift certificate. It’s not much, but at least I’m putting something more than indignation or bravado behind my argument.

Rico–from my posting there is no indication as to my feelings on the abortion issue except that there are two sides held by people. Those that express a veiwpoint based on religion (such as islam) or other stand (medical, philosophy, racism, etc.) should be able to find a means with out simply demeaning others. And I doubt that the point that it is acceptable to kill opposition including medical people just because they differ is held by most of those opposed to abortion. This an issue around the world and abortions occur in every religious group and in every country (legal or illegal—with and without the father’s agreement.) Nuff on this issue from me.

Laughing hysterically here, Rico. I don’t think I’ll rely on your interpretations of law or Biblical meaning, to determine my place in the hereafter.

But thanks for the giggle.

And you did mention the holocaust. Which included Mengele. Own up. For cryin’ out loud it’s right above us in print.

What is in print is my response to another post that there are, in fact, similarities between the Holocaust and killing millions of babies here in America. Before my response to you, where did you see me write about Mengela? You often seem delusional to me, but I didn’t realize your psychosis involved hallucinations. Joseph Goebbels was also ‘included’ in the Holocaust. Is it a leap to say I mentioned him as well. How about Elie Wiesel? He certainly was included. Did I mention him?

Rico cannot seem to grasp that he is preassuming his own opinion to be the correct one. He cannot conceptualize otherwise, and wouldn’t care to anyway.
.
And just as a point of clarification, if you plan to murder anyone, and if you were somehow correct about abortion, you’d end up right there with the rest of the murderers for all eternity. Sounds a little counterproductive to me (at least in the case of your own eternal soul).
.
Maybe, you’d be asking for forgiveness? So might others in the same boat. I imagine that your tail would be in knots over having to share Heaven with people you’d hated on so hard.
.
And, I suppose one could find some superficial similarities between lots of pairs of completely unrelated factoids. Doesn’t mean anything.

I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of the left on this issue.

So all taking of human life is the same? That’s your position? So the life of child deserves no more protection than that of a child killer? It seems the left spends a lot of time and energy defending the rights of the predators among us without any regard for their prey.

Pascal. could you explain what you mean by the term “regular Jew”?? Does that mean that there are “irregular Jews”"???

Rico, let me use as many little words as I can.

You don’t know my take on abortion, so your assumptions are baseless and without merit.

You project hypocrisy onto others, because you are very hypocritical yourself and can better recognize the components of the trait.

It is law here that abortion is legal. Legal means it is NOT murder. Don’t like the law? Work to change it, or move to somewhere it is illegal already.

You know what you realy seem to enjoy? Your misplaced pride in your self-righteous sense of moral superiority. That, I believe, will get you “Left Behind” someday. Chew that cud for awhile.

No small words needed here, Varian. If you want to continue making up words like ‘preassume’ to demonstrate your intellectual superiority, you go right ahead.

Ah, Rico discovers the “red herring” strategem for debate avoidance.

That would be the “I can’t win this argument, so I’ll attempt to divert attention over to this completely irrelevant detail.”

I don’t think the comparison between abortion and the Holocaust is desperate or illogical. The Holocaust is one example of the human capacity to justify evil. The Holocaust is remarkable not because of the the evil people involved in the regime, but for the ethical, reasonable people who were convinced that the Holocaust was justified. Similarly with slavery. The remarkable thing about slavery is not that evil people are capable of evil, but that honorable, kind, and intelligent people were capable of evil simply because their culture deemed it as acceptable.

That’s what we do when we justify abortion. And future generations will teach about our society and abortion with the same judgment and disbelief that we have when we teach about the Holocaust and slavery. It will be unfathomable that otherwise moral, educated people could have defended abortion.

It’s pseudo-intellectual bloggers like you and Think Again who attempt to belittle others by questioning their intelligence, correcting grammar, etc. So when she corrects others’ grammar while using sentence fragments, I call her on it. Suggesting that ’small words’ be necessary for me to understand your point while using made-up words to make your point deserves a response as well.

I didn’t even realize we were, in fact, debating, since you haven’t really made your position known. Right, genius?

Any old textbook as described will suffice. When human live begins has been known by science for over 100 years. I’m not jewish but there are all sorts of Jews. There are the Reformed ones. There are Orthodox ones. There are ones who wear top hats, beards, and are very strict (and very interesting to talk with). There is also a view that Jews don’t exist, that is, are not the Old Testament Jews. Schoeman has lectured here and his book is the easier read. For graduate credit you need The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its impact on World History by Jones.

Rico, how brilliant of you to discover that my pseudo-intellectualism miraculously validates your point. I don’t think I need to question your intelligence, just your critical thinking skills, which never seem to have been developed. I guess you’re right that we aren’t debating, either. You are just telling us what we should do.
You want my position on abortion? Here it is.
.
I wouldn’t encourage anybody to have an abortion, but it wouldn’t be up to me because in the end it wouldn’t be me having one. Further, abortion is legal, and I wouldn’t deny anybody their choice to make about it. And so far, there is nothing more than unsupported assumption about when an embryo changes from raw materials into a person.
.
I believe in Free Will, people get to make choices, some good, some not so good, but they have to live with those choices, and it isn’t your (or my) beeswax to tell them differently. Society may have inducements for behavior mitigation, but in the case of abortion, currently, society allows it.
.
And if you think it is your right to deny people what is legal behavior for them, you are the one making a really poor choice (for yourself).
.
Like I said before, if you don’t like the law, work to change the law via the legislature. Anything else is vanity and pride, and I would suggest that you spend more of your time contemplating your own shortcomings, since you seem to feel the need to “fix” something.
.
Oh, and since you are fixated on my usage of preassume, I acknowledge that I should have hyphenated like this, pre-assume, or simply used the word presumption instead. My apologies for ruining the English language for you.

When a living sperm cell joins a living egg cell they combine to form a unique living being. That being is human. It is a member of our species. Killing members of our species ought not occur (that is a moral argument). The “ought” part, specifically. Who wants to argue against that “ought”? Mengele is a historical fact. Apparently, some readers are not aware of what Mengele did for “the betterment of humanity” but it is instructive to this discussion that he ended his days doing abortions.

Wait a minute, Pascal. According to the rules on what examples you’re allowed to use to support your case, Mengele is unfair terriitory. can you please choose a less relevant example? It’ll help the ideologues from having to face uncomfortable realities. Thanks.
.
Speaking of uncomfortable realities, I wonder how many of the pro-choice folks have watched the following video. It’s a “fetus’ being dismembered and crushed at an abortion clinic while under an ultrasound. Since some folks have requested that limitations be placed on debate examples, I’d like to request that those who wish to debate watch the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjNo_0cW-ek

Mengele’s views were imports from England and the USA were they not? An angel of death certainly belongs to the species Culture of Death, think. If we renounce Mengele what does that mean if we continue to embrace his ideas? Having it both ways ought not be within “the rules”?
However, if we are to instruct the lawyers then Davis vs Davis,No.E-14496,Blount Co.,Tenn.,Circuit Court is the case of record as covered by the liberal snots at the New York Times under date of 9/14/90. As most people are too lazy to inform themselves this case determined when human life begins.

For Tennessee, you mean. Having someone judge, in a local court, when life begins means nothing beyond the jurisdiction of that court.

I could, for example, judge that adults who call other adults “snots” likely know from the experience of looking in the mirror every morning just what a “snot” looks like. But, the validity of that opinion goes no further that does the purview of my influence (which, last time I checked ended just past the end of my nose).
.
All of the anti-abortion arguments here are pointless. I – get – it, you find it reprehensible. Instead of bullying people in front of clinics, get your legislators to change the law. Anything else is armchair whining.
.
You live in a country that is devoted to law. Most people will never like all of the laws they are subject to. So, you have to live within the law, get law(s) changed or, move to someplace that has laws that you like better.
.
Oh, and if you haven’t seen it before, I think anybody who thinks that using references to anything “Nazi” is helping convince others towards their point of view – aren’t. In fact, references to “Nazis” has become the lamest, clichéd excuse for validation in western civilization.

Pascal,
You are correct. There ARE numerous studies and journal reports that scientifically determine that life begins at conception. There are also multiple court cases that show the same. I could link several of both, but that would defeat the puspose of my challenge.
.
I want someone to post a scientific journal report proving that life DOES NOT begin at conception. I wish I could afford more than a $15 dollar lunch to prove my point. If I were offering $20k, it might raise a few eyebrows when nobody posted a response.
.
Without giving the peer reviewed material away, the following scientific argument is a wotrthwhile read for anyone who weighs in on the abortion argument:
http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf

“In fact, references to “Nazis” has become the lamest, clichéd excuse for validation in western civilization.”
.
…with the exception of cases where there are direct parallels. Like eugenics and population control. It would be a fools errand and an ethical injustice to identify gross moral depravity that was implemented by Nazi’s, and not use it to illuminate the acceptance of identical depravity that is enabled in our own society.
.
When “political correctness” supercedes the need for open debate and historical perspective, we have made a conscious choice to eliminate a full breadth of perspective and subsequent rationalization. Human experience is not contained within a polite, attractive box. Anyone who tries to propagandize otherwise in a conscious effort to prevent the effective challenging of difficult ideological circumstances is morally repugnant to me.

Well. Thanks for the link, Shorebreak. Interesting exercise in cellular biology, but an inadequate effort when it attempts to present a forgone conclusion of humanity via biology.

a) Westchester Institute – a Catholic “think” tank. Hardly without an agenda, and the only peer review I could see, was from others with the exact same opinion (and on the same payroll).

b) The White Paper. An extended discussion of cellular biology as it pertains to post-fertilization development. But, n-o-t-h-i-n-g in the way of proof as to when “humanity” begins. Completely presumptuous, without any scientific (or religious) “proof” of anything. Certainly, an interesting overview of cellular development, but hardly even worth discussing when it comes to burden of proof.
The only people this is going to “convince” are people who already believe her premise to be true.
The author is obviously very smart and knowledgable in her field, but her critical thinking skills have a glaring gap when it comes to attempting to bridge the conceptual chasm from cells to humanity.
.
If you have something else, please bring it up and I will look at it when I have time. I, at least, and willing to have a look at all of this proof that you seem to think is floating about out there.
.
My position is that we cannot “know” when humanity appears. I hardly think that anyone who isn’t pushing your agenda would even pay for such “research”. So, your challenge is meaningless.

“My position is that we cannot “know” when humanity appears.”
.
Thank you. Since we don’t know when humanity appears, at least you can understand why I believe a planned abortion may constitute murder. if we agree that we don’t know if life has begun, how could anyone take that risk without throwing out all moral and ethical responsibility?
.
With regards to the white paper, I posted it as a rational explanation with a scientific basis, not as a peer reviewed piece (which I stated).

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31961 which is good reading. The lunch money is safe as there is nowhere in existence any paper that says human life does not begin at conception. Civil law in many jurisdictions have examined whether test tube babies or the frozen babies are human beings or property. I think that test tube babies now alive are living testaments to the falsity of some previous arguments advanced by ignorant people. The Catholics have scientific fact in near perfect conformity and the anti life folks have no science at all to support their positions. The Catholics defend human reason. The anti life sorts have only legal postivism, that is, law without morality as a limiting factor. As Ann points out above, you can’t even in this democracy vote on certain things. Kelson comes to mind as a leading theorist of relativism which in law translates to legal positivism, “..any content whatsoever can be legal; there is no human behavior which could not function as the content of a legal norm”. Now, those who follow that view cannot say that Abortion is wrong. But, they cannot say that Auschwitz was wrong either! Ironic though it may be, the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 made it perfectly legal to exterminate Jews by denying them personhood. Sound familiar to anyone who has actually read Roe v Wade? Jewish lives were then taken, perfectly legally, because the law had already established that euthanasia was permissible to destroy lives devoid of value. Sound familiar? At least Hitler went through the motions of democracy. The USA

did not.

There we go again with those pesky parallels. Pascal – can’t you come up with some other government who did the same thing that the nazi’s did? I’m told that if the nazi’s did it, the example is not valid.
.
In case you’re not following the logic, it works like this: If nazi’s did something that was deemed bad, it cannot be used to show that something our government does is bad. The nazi’s were worse than our government, so nothing they did can ever be presented as viable subject matter – even if some of what our government does has 100% direct parallels.
.
Maybe we can find parallels from the Chinese government instead.

Shorebreak, I will allow you your point that there is moral risk. But, you won’t acknowledge that in civil law abortion is currently legal. You must follow the law, else change the law from within the system. You seem to want to circumvent the process.
.
Perhaps we should get a brief description of your beliefs about the death penalty, warfare, defending yourself with lethal force, mercy killing while we are debating death as murder?
.
I will continue to disagree that the White Paper you linked is a rational explanation corroborating your contention. It isn’t. It doesn’t successfully prove anything about humanity. Frankly, it doesn’t even try. It says biological processes are defined blah, blah, blah, and so life begins at “X”. The “blah, blah, blah” part is a lot of technical jargon which masks an empty promise of proof.
.
Let me clarify the “Nazi” thing. People who don’t know nothin’ about no Nazis, should avoid using their ignorance as a big red flag. Anytime you wish to discuss the Nazi regime in Germany, I would be more than happy to bore you to death about it.

I am not overly concerned with rules which mask truths. Herodotus called his work historie, which means”inquiries”. It is part of the failure of American education that those ideas on which the Nazis operated to our disgust HAD AMERICAN AND ENGLISH ORIGINS. Even apartheid was an American invention (destroy the Negro family with “welfare” and denial of employment in trades where Negro men made good livings via Davis-Bacon Laws). Now, I realize that your tongue is portruding from your cheek by quite an extent but I wouldn’t want your satire to be missed. I’ve often wondered how Michael Jordan’s tongue survived as often as he dangled between his teeth.
If we pay no attention to historie then Winston Churchill’s war criminality doesn’t matter(one of his first acts was to murder defenseless women and children). While Henry Ford said that history was bunk it remains in the curriculum for indoctrination purposes.

Pascal – you’re starting to lose me. I’m seeing your points but in all fairness, most of your most recent post is outside the scope of this discussion. If I could summarize for you, I believe that you’re making the point that the actual origins of eugenics and population reduction that were implemnted after 1933 in Germany were rooted in philosophies that were taken from policies implemented and/or professed in the US. Therefore, it’s relevant to bring examples like mengele into the discussion. I would agree with that.
.
Varangianguard – I too know more about the nazi regime than I care to repeat. My perspective is that for sake of maintaining liberty, all government should be held suspect in all things at all times. Given the history of humanity, it’s what I refer to as a rational risk-based approach to policy and politics. In that respect, I see no distinctions that bar comparisons of like activities between different governments.
.
And since you asked:
Death Penalty: Outlaw it. “Vengeance is Mine” and the potential for wrongfull conviction, for starters.
Warfare: I’m morally opposed except in cases of imminent real (not perceived) external threat by a foreign state (or states) with a full up vote by Congress, and a specified, agreed objective that will end hostilities when achieved.
Defending with Lethal Force: Yes, in defense against a lethal threat. I’ve been attacked by multiple thugs bearing knives and wrenches when I had no weapon and the attack was a surprise. None of my attackers were killed, but all four were arrested and two had reconstructive surgery. If I were defending with a pistol, I would hope to respond according to the level of threat. In the dark in my house I’m aiming for center mass. In the stree against a knife, hopefully I wouldn’t need to shoot and if I did it would likely be an extremity.
Mercy Killing: That’s a tough call, depending on circumstances. 90% burned victim with entrails spread across the pavement and body parts missing? I think a mercy killing is highly in order to save another 20-30 minutes of blinding suffering before an unavoidable death. Frail and suffering from a chronic disease that’s going to slowly kill a person over the next 12-18 months? What’s the difference between a bullet to the brain or a lethal injection? What if science discovers a cure in 6 months and the patient would have lived for another 5-10 years? Nobody ever said that life is meant to be without suffering. In my opinion, a planned death in that manner (contrary to the victim described in my first example) is a rejection of life. My belief system challenges me to rekindle a suffering or dying soul rather than to stamp them out.

Well this prohibition of analogy (a valid manner of learning)where Nazi policy cannot be discussed is a bit head in sand. I note that First Things in its latest issue (194) on page 72 has an interesting commentary on the Nazi policy of striking down abortion prohibition in every country they occupied. First Things utilizes this in a discussion about conscience exemptions. Careful readers of LEFTISM will note in footnote 16 of chapter 12 “The largest single professional group in the Nazi party,the elementary school teachers,….” Facts are facts and knowing a lot of facts is important for the process of thought. I suppose the NEA has a position on conscience exemptions?