Leading democrat contenders want to make it easier to kill babies

[MDM4AU 336]

For those of you that think the government should stay out of it, that it's a woman's choice, blah, blah, blah...

How do you feel about taxpayers footing the bill?

Elizabeth Edwards: "Only A Truly Universal Health Care Plan Guarantees That Every Woman Will Have Her Health Care Needs Met ... And Those Needs, Of Course, Include Reproductive Health Services. All Reproductive Health Services, Including Pregnancy Termination, Will Be Available Components Of His Plan." (Mike Dorning, "Elizabeth Edwards: Abortion Coverage For All," Chicago Tribune's "The Swamp" Blog, 7/17/07)

"Asked About His Proposal For Expanded Access To Health Insurance, Obama Said It Would Cover 'Reproductive-Health Services.' Contacted Afterward, An Obama Spokesman Said That Included Abortions." (Mike Dorning, "Democrats Pledge Support For Wide Access To Abortion," Chicago Tribune, 7/18/07)

Also per that argument, anyone who is on life support could be stabbed to death by their family and it should be legal.

Good point...

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I just get sick of people acting like a matter of traveling a few inches down a woman's vagina determines whether you're a person or not. And the idiotic notion that as long as you deliver everything but the head and can stab the base of the skull and collapse it to remove it...that's still an "abortion" and not infanticide.

Sickening.

[RunInRed 16,486]

And he has said in recent weeks that he doesn't remember filling out the form that way. He'll have plenty of opportunity to explain his position more in the coming months. If I need to make changes at that point, I will. But what I've seen of his voting record makes me pretty confident that he's solidly pro-life. Far more solid than McCain or Guiliani and more than any Democrat that would ever have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the party's nomination.

So can we all now assume that aborition is your voting litmus test? If so, as you stated, your candidate selection choice is small.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

And he has said in recent weeks that he doesn't remember filling out the form that way. He'll have plenty of opportunity to explain his position more in the coming months. If I need to make changes at that point, I will. But what I've seen of his voting record makes me pretty confident that he's solidly pro-life. Far more solid than McCain or Guiliani and more than any Democrat that would ever have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the party's nomination.

So can we all now assume that aborition is your voting litmus test? If so, as you stated, your candidate selection choice is small.

It is a prime consideration. It is a matter of conscience and ranks as more important that other considerations such as specific tax policy or environmental policy for instance. And it's no more of a litmus test than those on the other side of the spectrum, who are legion in number, that refuse to vote for anyone that isn't pro-choice.

The regurgitation of pro-choice talking points is getting tiresome, red. I don't know you so I won't speculate on your education level or understanding of the issues, but I've heard all these weak responses to pro-life positions a thousand times and they are as empty and vaporous now as they were 15 years or so ago when I first started paying close attention to politics. I don't say that to be rude or mean, but if you want to discuss this issue, it's got to be on a deeper level than this.

[channonc 466]

For those of you that think the government should stay out of it, that it's a woman's choice, blah, blah, blah...

How do you feel about taxpayers footing the bill?

Elizabeth Edwards: "Only A Truly Universal Health Care Plan Guarantees That Every Woman Will Have Her Health Care Needs Met ... And Those Needs, Of Course, Include Reproductive Health Services. All Reproductive Health Services, Including Pregnancy Termination, Will Be Available Components Of His Plan." (Mike Dorning, "Elizabeth Edwards: Abortion Coverage For All," Chicago Tribune's "The Swamp" Blog, 7/17/07)

"Asked About His Proposal For Expanded Access To Health Insurance, Obama Said It Would Cover 'Reproductive-Health Services.' Contacted Afterward, An Obama Spokesman Said That Included Abortions." (Mike Dorning, "Democrats Pledge Support For Wide Access To Abortion," Chicago Tribune, 7/18/07)

Also per that argument, anyone who is on life support could be stabbed to death by their family and it should be legal.

Good point...

I have no problems with this. I would rather pay for an abortion than pay for a child to be neglected by the welfare mom.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

For those of you that think the government should stay out of it, that it's a woman's choice, blah, blah, blah...

How do you feel about taxpayers footing the bill?

Elizabeth Edwards: "Only A Truly Universal Health Care Plan Guarantees That Every Woman Will Have Her Health Care Needs Met ... And Those Needs, Of Course, Include Reproductive Health Services. All Reproductive Health Services, Including Pregnancy Termination, Will Be Available Components Of His Plan." (Mike Dorning, "Elizabeth Edwards: Abortion Coverage For All," Chicago Tribune's "The Swamp" Blog, 7/17/07)

"Asked About His Proposal For Expanded Access To Health Insurance, Obama Said It Would Cover 'Reproductive-Health Services.' Contacted Afterward, An Obama Spokesman Said That Included Abortions." (Mike Dorning, "Democrats Pledge Support For Wide Access To Abortion," Chicago Tribune, 7/18/07)

Also per that argument, anyone who is on life support could be stabbed to death by their family and it should be legal.

Good point...

I have no problems with this. I would rather pay for an abortion than pay for a child to be neglected by the welfare mom.

I'd rather not pay to kill the child but rather, strengthen our laws and better fund our Child Protective Services at the local level so that children who are neglected are found quickly and placed with families that care about children.

[MDM4AU 336]

For those of you that think the government should stay out of it, that it's a woman's choice, blah, blah, blah...

How do you feel about taxpayers footing the bill?

Elizabeth Edwards: "Only A Truly Universal Health Care Plan Guarantees That Every Woman Will Have Her Health Care Needs Met ... And Those Needs, Of Course, Include Reproductive Health Services. All Reproductive Health Services, Including Pregnancy Termination, Will Be Available Components Of His Plan." (Mike Dorning, "Elizabeth Edwards: Abortion Coverage For All," Chicago Tribune's "The Swamp" Blog, 7/17/07)

"Asked About His Proposal For Expanded Access To Health Insurance, Obama Said It Would Cover 'Reproductive-Health Services.' Contacted Afterward, An Obama Spokesman Said That Included Abortions." (Mike Dorning, "Democrats Pledge Support For Wide Access To Abortion," Chicago Tribune, 7/18/07)

Also per that argument, anyone who is on life support could be stabbed to death by their family and it should be legal.

Good point...

I have no problems with this. I would rather pay for an abortion than pay for a child to be neglected by the welfare mom.

It's an assumption that a child will be neglected - it's a fact that abortion is killing an innocent human life.

[autiger4life 3]

My sister got pregnant while she was a freshman at Auburn, was on the line of whether or not to have an abortion and decided to give up the baby for adoption. This is one thing that her and I debate a lot about.

Everyone keeps saying that we're just killing babies and nothing justifies that. I completely agree killing babies should be illegal. However, as I have said, and the leading candidates have said, and people who are pro-choice(notice not pro-abortion or pro-killing of innocent babies) is that in the first 3 months it is not a human. The belief is that just because it has the potential to grow into a human, does not make it human. Just as if you take a cell from your skin with all your dna, take out the nucleus, shock it, it will think it has been fertilized and can grow into a human(in theory) but that doesn't make is a human. I know this is a little shady, but the point is, at certain point in development I don't think it is a baby, so therefore I dont think I am murdering babies.

[MDM4AU 336]

The belief is that just because it has the potential to grow into a human, does not make it human.

My Faith tells me otherwise...

[AU_tiger_2000 0]

Also per that argument, anyone who is on life support could be stabbed to death by their family and it should be legal.

Actually it's worse, abortion would be analogous to stabbing the person without their consent.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

My sister got pregnant while she was a freshman at Auburn, was on the line of whether or not to have an abortion and decided to give up the baby for adoption. This is one thing that her and I debate a lot about.

Good for her. She was wise beyond her years.

Everyone keeps saying that we're just killing babies and nothing justifies that. I completely agree killing babies should be illegal. However, as I have said, and the leading candidates have said, and people who are pro-choice(notice not pro-abortion or pro-killing of innocent babies) is that in the first 3 months it is not a human. The belief is that just because it has the potential to grow into a human, does not make it human.

This is an assertion, not a fact. Within the first month (around 22 days), the child's heart begins to beat with the child's own blood (completely distinct from the mother's) and she probably doesn't even know she's pregnant yet. By week 6, brain waves are detectable. At week 7, eyelids and toes form, the nose is distinct and the baby is kicking and swimming. By week 8 every organ is in place and bones and fingerprints begin to form. By week 10, the teeth begin to form and the baby can turn it's head and even frown. At week eleven, the baby can grasp a small object placed in its hand. At week 12, the baby can experience the rapid eye movement (REM) sleep of dreams.

That's not some wart you go have removed, it's a person.

Just as if you take a cell from your skin with all your dna, take out the nucleus, shock it, it will think it has been fertilized and can grow into a human (in theory) but that doesn't make is a human.

Your theories have no bearing on this argument. And while that skin cell, even if this Frankenstein hypothesis were true, would have the exact same DNA as you, the baby has it's own DNA completely separate from the mother.

I know this is a little shady, but the point is, at certain point in development I don't think it is a baby, so therefore I dont think I am murdering babies.

It's a lot shady. You need to brush up on your science a little more.

[RunInRed 16,486]

And he has said in recent weeks that he doesn't remember filling out the form that way. He'll have plenty of opportunity to explain his position more in the coming months. If I need to make changes at that point, I will. But what I've seen of his voting record makes me pretty confident that he's solidly pro-life. Far more solid than McCain or Guiliani and more than any Democrat that would ever have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the party's nomination.

So can we all now assume that aborition is your voting litmus test? If so, as you stated, your candidate selection choice is small.

It is a prime consideration. It is a matter of conscience and ranks as more important that other considerations such as specific tax policy or environmental policy for instance. And it's no more of a litmus test than those on the other side of the spectrum, who are legion in number, that refuse to vote for anyone that isn't pro-choice.

The regurgitation of pro-choice talking points is getting tiresome, red. I don't know you so I won't speculate on your education level or understanding of the issues, but I've heard all these weak responses to pro-life positions a thousand times and they are as empty and vaporous now as they were 15 years or so ago when I first started paying close attention to politics. I don't say that to be rude or mean, but if you want to discuss this issue, it's got to be on a deeper level than this.

Again, I'm not really interested in getting in a pissing match with you on this because the bottom line is, like religion and other social issues I believe abortion is a personal choice and therefore I take a laissez fair approach to it. Anotherwords, it is just not a big deal to me and if anything, I think the government should stay out of people's personal lives and decisions. In fact, abortion would not come close to making mine or most in this country's top 5 list of priority issues (if you believe national polls on what matters to voters). So if you want to get into some medical or moral debate on abortion, I'm telling you that I'm the wrong guy to be talking to.

My point was that this whole thread is nothing more than tired old right-wing red meat that says "Democrats are a bunch of baby killers." This is the kind of politics that Karl Rove and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson preached as a way to tilt the country towards the evangelical right. Both sides play these type of games. I don't want the next president spending his time working on Roe v. Wade - I think there are much more important issues this country faces. Yet it never fails, come election season, the Right pulls this kinda of crap (which prompts the abortion response lines you are sick of).

[BamaGrad03 0]

Can I please point out, yet again, that the original article was about PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS?

You can argue all day about life vs conception. And that's fine. But tabling all that for a moment...the democrats are willing to fight tooth and nail for a woman's right to kill a baby that may very well survive on it's own otherwise. THAT's what we are talking about.

I want someone to defend that as opposed to the same discussion about 1st trimester. Because with partial birth abortions, you don't even have to be religious to see that it's completely unacceptable.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Again, I'm not really interested in getting in a pissing match with you on this because the bottom line is, like religion and other social issues I believe abortion is a personal choice and therefore I take a laissez fair approach to it. Anotherwords, it is just not a big deal to me and if anything, I think the government should stay out of people's personal lives and decisions. In fact, abortion would not come close to making mine or most in this country's top 5 list of priority issues (if you believe national polls on what matters to voters). So if you want to get into some medical or moral debate on abortion, I'm telling you that I'm the wrong guy to be talking to.

My point was that this whole thread is nothing more than tired old right-wing red meat that says "Democrats are a bunch of baby killers." This is the kind of politics that Karl Rove and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson preached as a way to tilt the country towards the evangelical right. Both sides play these type of games. I don't want the next president spending his time working on Roe v. Wade - I think there are much more important issues this country faces. Yet it never fails, come election season, the Right pulls this kinda of crap (which prompts the abortion response lines you are sick of).

When two or three front-running Democratic candidates not only reaffirm their commitment to abortion on demand, but want taxpayers to foot the bill so poor people can do it too, it's a serious issue. "Let's not only allow women to kill their unborn children any time during pregnancy, let's violate the consciences of millions by taking their tax dollars to pay for it! Whee!" That's why the tone of this thread is the way it is.

I find it sad that abortion isn't a big deal to you. You admittedly haven't studied the issue that much but feel comfortable in a laissez faire approach that doesn't even consider that if we're going to err one way or the other, it might be prudent to err on the side of not killing an innocent life.

In fact, abortion would not come close to making mine or most in this country's top 5 list of priority issues (if you believe national polls on what matters to voters).

Yet, just like you imply that I'm some mindless zombie listening to Pat Robertson for the single issue on which my vote should hinge, there's not a chance in hell that a pro-life candidate would ever make it anywhere close to the Democratic Party nomination. So no matter what the polls might say about this, it apparently IS an important issue for a whole lot of people on both sides.

[RunInRed 16,486]

And he has said in recent weeks that he doesn't remember filling out the form that way. He'll have plenty of opportunity to explain his position more in the coming months. If I need to make changes at that point, I will. But what I've seen of his voting record makes me pretty confident that he's solidly pro-life. Far more solid than McCain or Guiliani and more than any Democrat that would ever have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the party's nomination.

So can we all now assume that aborition is your voting litmus test? If so, as you stated, your candidate selection choice is small.

It is a prime consideration. It is a matter of conscience and ranks as more important that other considerations such as specific tax policy or environmental policy for instance. And it's no more of a litmus test than those on the other side of the spectrum, who are legion in number, that refuse to vote for anyone that isn't pro-choice.

The regurgitation of pro-choice talking points is getting tiresome, red. I don't know you so I won't speculate on your education level or understanding of the issues, but I've heard all these weak responses to pro-life positions a thousand times and they are as empty and vaporous now as they were 15 years or so ago when I first started paying close attention to politics. I don't say that to be rude or mean, but if you want to discuss this issue, it's got to be on a deeper level than this.

Again, I'm not really interested in getting in a pissing match with you on this because the bottom line is, like religion and other social issues I believe abortion is a personal choice and therefore I take a laissez fair approach to it. Anotherwords, it is just not a big deal to me and if anything, I think the government should stay out of people's personal lives and decisions. In fact, abortion would not come close to making mine or most in this country's top 5 list of priority issues (if you believe national polls on what matters to voters). So if you want to get into some medical or moral debate on abortion, I'm telling you that I'm the wrong guy to be talking to.

My point was that this whole thread is nothing more than tired old right-wing red meat that says "Democrats are a bunch of baby killers." This is the kind of politics that Karl Rove and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson preached as a way to tilt the country towards the evangelical right. Both sides play these type of games. I don't want the next president spending his time working on Roe v. Wade - I think there are much more important issues this country faces. Yet it never fails, come election season, the Right pulls this kinda of crap (which prompts the abortion response lines you are sick of).

When two or three front-running Democratic candidates not only reaffirm their commitment to abortion on demand, but want taxpayers to foot the bill so poor people can do it too, it's a serious issue. "Let's not only allow women to kill their unborn children any time during pregnancy, let's violate the consciences of millions by taking their tax dollars to pay for it! Whee!" That's why the tone of this thread is the way it is.

I find it sad that abortion isn't a big deal to you. You admittedly haven't studied the issue that much but feel comfortable in a laissez faire approach that doesn't even consider that if we're going to err one way or the other, it might be prudent to err on the side of not killing an innocent life.

As I said, the Dems are playing to their base just like the Right does. That is why you saw these 3 come out like this.

You can think what ever you want of me - but the whole killing an innocent life crap is old. What about the innocent who are wrongfully executed - where's your outrage there? I could point to discrepancy in the system all over the place. But the bottom line is, unless you want the government making every decision for you, unless you want the country governed from the pope's guidance in Rome, unless you want everyone to act and think like you.....

Get it? There is a beauty to America that I'm not quite sure you grasp or want to grasp. I, like BO would like to find common ground where we could on this issue and invest in education, contraceptives, etc. You on the other hand, would rather debate this and call me sad, misguided, etc.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

... Anotherwords, it is just not a big deal to me and if anything, I think the government should stay out of people's personal lives and decisions. ...

If the issue was as simple as the govt minding its own business and "staying out of people's personal lives," then yes, I would agree with you. It's not. In other words: you've got candidates running around promising all kinds of universal health care and guarantees of abortion on demand, including partial birth abortions. The government is hardly "staying out of people's personal lives" when it forces people who believe abortion = murder to pay for another's abortion. That's the central issue and disguising the partial birth abortion procedure under the euphemistic term, "Reproductive Health Care Services" isn't fooling anyone with a brain.

[BamaGrad03 0]

As I said, the Dems are playing to their base just like the Right does. That is why you saw these 3 come out like this.

You can think what ever you want of me - but the whole killing an innocent life crap is old. What about the innocent who are wrongfully executed - where's your outrage there? I could point to discrepancy in the system all over the place. But the bottom line is, unless you want the government making every decision for you, unless you want the country governed from the pope's guidance in Rome, unless you want everyone to act and think like you.....

Get it? There is a beauty to America that I'm not quite sure you grasp or want to grasp. I, like BO would like to find common ground where we could on this issue and invest in education, contraceptives, etc. You on the other hand, would rather debate this and call me sad, misguided, etc.

You don't want to go down that route. Titan isn't a big fan of the death penalty either.

And why do you think this is a "government butting in issue"? Like we've asked before...do you think it's wrong for the government to mandate that you can't steal a car, smoke crack rock, or murder your best friend?

And why won't you comment on partial birth abortions?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

You can think what ever you want of me - but the whole killing an innocent life crap is old. What about the innocent who are wrongfully executed - where's your outrage there? I could point to discrepancy in the system all over the place. But the bottom line is, unless you want the government making every decision for you, unless you want the country governed from the pope's guidance in Rome, unless you want everyone to act and think like you.....

Get it? There is a beauty to America that I'm not quite sure you grasp or want to grasp. I, like BO would like to find common ground where we could on this issue and invest in education, contraceptives, etc. You on the other hand, would rather debate this and call me sad, misguided, etc.

You could do a search on these boards where I've said, more than once, that if I were in position to do so, I would call for a moratorium on executions nationwide until we formed a group to extensively study how and why wrongful convictions and executions take place. Furthermore, I would require a higher standard of proof than "reasonable doubt" for execution to even be on the table. If the group can come up with a plan that will ensure we don't execute innocent people, then capital punishment will be reinstated under this plan of action. If not, life in prison would be the maximum sentence. I would rather let 100 guilty people rot in jail than kill one innocent person.

There is no discrepancy here. I am for protecting the innocent, period. At the very least I'm for erring on the side of not killing rather than elevating convenience above basic decency. I'm all for reducing abortions in other ways. Almost anything that will get people to treasure human life rather than dispose of it. But that doesn't mean resorting to barbaric procedures and dismissing early stage unborn children as some wart on a woman's body to be removed at will.

[autiger4life 3]

First of all, on the whole stabbing a person while on life support. If the family felt as if they wanted to stab the person a life support, than I would be okay with it, I would find it wierd and I personally would not choose that route, but I'd be okay with others, just as I would never want a girlfriend or wife of mine to have an abortion, but I won't say someone else cannot do it. As far as the consent, the family can make the decision without the consent of the patient, just like abortion, it is the families right.

I understand that some believe it is a human because their faith tells them it is a human at conception or even before conception. However, if I don't sure your faith than I obviously don't agree with you on that point. The government should not be based on what your faith tells you to do, well I do not think so. If we start basing our laws on our faith then it is no longer a free country. Some people may be fine with this, and thats okay. As long as there is the understanding that you cannot have both a free country and laws based on one set of beliefs.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

You do realize there are numerous atheists and agnostics that are against abortion and make no argument that's based on faith as their reason, don't you?

Essentially you're making the "you can't legislate morality" argument and it just doesn't hold water. We impose our moral beliefs on people who feel differently all the time. Law is legislated morality.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

First of all, on the whole stabbing a person while on life support. If the family felt as if they wanted to stab the person a life support, than I would be okay with it, I would find it wierd and I personally would not choose that route, but I'd be okay with others, just as I would never want a girlfriend or wife of mine to have an abortion, but I won't say someone else cannot do it. As far as the consent, the family can make the decision without the consent of the patient, just like abortion, it is the families right.

I understand that some believe it is a human because their faith tells them it is a human at conception or even before conception. However, if I don't sure your faith than I obviously don't agree with you on that point. The government should not be based on what your faith tells you to do, well I do not think so. If we start basing our laws on our faith then it is no longer a free country. Some people may be fine with this, and thats okay. As long as there is the understanding that you cannot have both a free country and laws based on one set of beliefs.

Uh ... yeah. That ole' family rights thing -- where exactly is that in the Constitution? (Glad I'm not part of your family!)

[BamaGrad03 0]

First of all, on the whole stabbing a person while on life support. If the family felt as if they wanted to stab the person a life support, than I would be okay with it, I would find it wierd and I personally would not choose that route, but I'd be okay with others, just as I would never want a girlfriend or wife of mine to have an abortion, but I won't say someone else cannot do it. As far as the consent, the family can make the decision without the consent of the patient, just like abortion, it is the families right.

I said life support. Not someone in a vegetated state with no sense of recovery. I'm talking about someone who is alert and just needs the support of machines to live.

I understand that some believe it is a human because their faith tells them it is a human at conception or even before conception. However, if I don't sure your faith than I obviously don't agree with you on that point. The government should not be based on what your faith tells you to do, well I do not think so. If we start basing our laws on our faith then it is no longer a free country. Some people may be fine with this, and thats okay. As long as there is the understanding that you cannot have both a free country and laws based on one set of beliefs.

For the 1,203rd time...religion aside...please argue in defense of the partial birth abortion situation. The one this thread was based upon. As I have begged you pro-choice people 3 seperate times...we are discussing partial birth abortions. Abortions where, in many cases, the child could live at that point had it not been aborted.

The thread starts out talking about partial birth abortions...and everyone wants to immediately shift the focuse to the old talking points of religion and 1st trimester. Don't do that. Don't go to the old stand by. Either you are FOR partial birth abortions...and can defend them...or you are against them.

[autiger4life 3]

Okay partial birth: I am against abortion after the first trimester. I think with modern medicine the baby is viable after this.

Uh ... yeah. That ole' family rights thing -- where exactly is that in the Constitution? (Glad I'm not part of your family!)

First of all, just because it is not in the constitution does not mean it is not a law. The constitution grants the power to create laws to congress. If you want the family rights law, well I guess I could find it but its really a waste of time. As I said, I would not have a loved one stabbed, just like I wouldn't want a loved one to have an abortion, but if it is someone elses family than I don't think it is my choice

You do realize there are numerous atheists and agnostics that are against abortion and make no argument that's based on faith as their reason, don't you?

Absolutley, as I said, I would never want a girlfriend or wife or family member to have an abortion. When my sister was pregnant, I was one of the ones trying to talk her out of abortion, but had she chosen that I would still believe that it was her right to do so.

Essentially you're making the "you can't legislate morality" argument and it just doesn't hold water. We impose our moral beliefs on people who feel differently all the time. Law is legislated morality.

You're right, we do legislate morality, but isn't there a difference in morality and religon. For instance in this case there are religons that say it is a human at conception, and then people with morals and no religon who say it is not.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Absolutley, as I said, I would never want a girlfriend or wife or family member to have an abortion. When my sister was pregnant, I was one of the ones trying to talk her out of abortion, but had she chosen that I would still believe that it was her right to do so.

What I'm saying is, they don't appeal to faith yet they are not only pro-life, but they explicitly DON'T think anyone has the right to terminate a human life based on convenience anymore than they think you have a right to kill your neighbor or steal from them.

You're right, we do legislate morality, but isn't there a difference in morality and religon. For instance in this case there are religions that say it is a human at conception, and then people with morals and no religion who say it is not.

It doesn't require religion to say that a living being with its own DNA is human life worthy of protection. You can't wiggle out of this argument by segregating this viewpoint into the realm of faith. We impose morality, without appeals to religion, everyday--by direct state interference using the coercive power of the police and jail systems--on those who have no personal problem with pedophilia, theft, murder for a Higher Cause, tax evasion, and heroin distribution. All over the world, police go around imposing morality on free spirits who just want to be left alone as they pursue these and other worthwhile activities that bring them so much personal fulfillment and happiness.

This is the very nature of law: to impose the conscience of the community on the individual. The only question is "on what basis", and "with what limits?" But the moment one of these legislations of morality comes down the pike we get the inevitable bickering. When we support such state interference with human autonomy and freedom, we call it "good government". If we oppose it, we call it "legislating morality", "imposing religion" or "social engineering".

The bottom line on this issue is that you can't dismiss it by relegating it to the ghetto of "faith considerations" because it's not that simple.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Okay partial birth: I am against abortion after the first trimester. I think with modern medicine the baby is viable after this.

At this point that's all that I care about. I'm against abortion 100%. But in the LEAST we need to not have politicians going around campaigning for women to have the right to a late term abortion.

I don't think you have to be religious to see the need to ban these. And it saddens me that so many democrats think they are OK.