The sucky-ass maternity leave we are offered (or not offered).

6-12 weeks unpaid? Hell, even 12 weeks paid is not enough and is not fair to new moms.

European countries are so far ahead of us when it comes to this. We should be doing a hell of alot more for new mothers and their infants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And we all know, if it was the men having this babies, they'd be out for alot longer than 12 weeks - paid.............

quote:

---

Originally posted by Softballmom:
Ok where is the soap? We have some more
poddy mouths!

---

Ha

Now that she has expresed a pro Kerry opinion..she is suddenly "not in touch with American women?"

Hold on, now..we're talkin' about Oprah, here..

On the other hand, allot of people are pretty cherged about politics now, so I'm sure she will take some guff and loose some viewers..which is sad, really..that it's come to loosing friendships and respect over this election..

Mo

I haven't won you over yet, Meg?

..I hope Oprah can still be Oprah, is all.

Mo

I just think it should be regulated so that woman cannot use it as a form of birth control.

Both my sister and I have had friends who have gotten several abortions because they were deliberately having unprotected sex w/out any form of birth control. They figured that if they got pregnant, they would just have an abortion for free or for little cost.

What if the baby has some major birth defects and will die early on (or on his/her own later in pregnancy and the mother will have to give labor to a still born) or the child would be so ill that s/he will be a vegetable for the rest of his/her life?

What if the mother has multiples, and in order to save some of the babies, some need to be aborted?

What if the mother is a victim of rape?

There are so many gray areas with abortion. I don't think it can be black and white...

Many times this is a medical decision that is very difficult, between doctors and mother.

In cases that involve moral issues, or isues of abuse of abortion should be delt with on levels that can be protective and helpful to our society. (education, other help)
NOT governmental banning of abortion.

We experienced the horrors when abortion was illegal, horrors for both mothers and babies..and a detrimental effect on socirty as well.

The government needs to focus on that which is most deleterious to our welfare, and IS their business..such as making healthcare available to all, our disaster of an economy, jobs, National Security, and Social Security..and the threat of Terrorism..
EFFECTIVELY

These are the areas our govenment is totally failing us under Bush, and the areas the gov needs to strengthen in order to protect our citizens.

We don't need imposed religious beliefs.

In my heart and soul, I unflinchingly say;

It is the epitome of self-centeredness and 'self' ishness to talk about " basic human rights" in one breath and then snuff out the "life" of an unborn child who hasn't a voice to remind all the women that don't want a child, that the unborn have basic human rights too.

Is it inconceivable for them, regardless of how they became impregnated to choose to give that human being life and then choose adoption?

This is one of those lose-lose debates so I don't want to get into it...... but did want to speak up for the thousands of aborted babies that are being returned to their Creator with the message :

You are misrepresenting my words.

I have the same feelings..in cases where it is done when there are other viable options, and where the mother may be abusing the procedure. I feel the same as you about that.

I happen to think NOT considering all aspects and circumstances is terribly, terribly wrong, and in no way in the best interest of "life".

My post is on GOVERNMENT banning of that choice, not the morality, or the sadness in certain circumstances..
I also believe, overall ..is not for any other to have the right to judge. Each case is individual, many cases are medically necessary, and the changes that need to be made in those that are not will not ever come out of GOVERNMENT banning.

There should be funded programs to address the abuse of abortion, or abortion used as birth control. That IS awful. Adoption can be a viable choice for SOME.

Basic human rights ARE the business of government, to futher clarify what I said above.

My feeling a government banning of abortion is wrong for our society, is not in any way saying I do not care about the unborn who suffer in some cases.

As far as partial birth abortion, I also feel, it MUST include exeptions for situations of serious medical necesity.

Who can judge all of this in such a broad manner, and also think across the board banning is the answer?

Again..when it becomes a medical decision, or a personal extreme situation decision..in which a mother and baby may be facing circumstances that staunch pro-lifers are not even considering in this...
our President, nor any of us, have any right to stick our noses in by making it ILLEGAL across the board.. This,IMO.

Mo

As you of course know, " We the people" are

the Government......WE decide whether or not our Government will be a MORAL one or not.

My personal choice is that we would return to One Nation Under God as poster Mo Sleep 2000 commented.

I agree with your concern Mo Sleep. Without sorrow of the soul and a change in the moral climate, we deserve nothing less than righteous judgement.

God has been merciful and long suffering if you believe He has the authority to decide ones fate.

(SBM)
Why not add extra funding to put a stop to sexual abuse, stiffer penalties to rapists, child molesters, why not look towards keeping women safe in america rather than given them an opion of what they can do because they are not safe!

Abortion for all others is just an easy way out because they wer not smart enouph or didn't care enouph to have safe protected sex. Make women take responcibility for their bodies.

Make our Government responcible to protect our women from preditors.

And when it comes down to a medical decision that is between the mother and God.

I had a friend who past away at age 36. Unknown reasons. She had several miscarraiges suffered from miagraines. She mannaged to carry twins to 5 months but she had a slow leak and lost her amniotic fluid. The babies were alive barely the doctors said that if they did not take the babies she would die from infection. The form that she thry wanted her to sign said concent to abort. She refused to sign it.

She chose to die rather than abort her children. In a few hours her body went into premature labor and she gave birth naturally. Both babies died. She had Two beautiful healthy children before her death who are now 7 and I think 12.

I am not saying that all should make this choice. I would not stand in judgement over her had she signed. But Legal abortions and abortion shops is a totally different thing!!!

[This message has been edited by Softballmom (edited 21 October 2004).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MammaLyme:
What about the welfare mothers that make sure they have children from different fathers to collect welfare. How fair is this? Then the fathers molest these children or end up killing them. This is also after the fact and the fetus would have been better off terminated in the early stages and the child not suffer with this fate.
Look at Maury Show. They come on there and have had sex with so many partners, they do not know who the father is. Then they pass aids on to the children which is so sad.

---

ML,
Not quite sure what you meant here, but I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment on how awful the whole thing is.
These welfare mothers are using the system to get more dollars, and are not interested in abortion as an option.

It's very disturbing to see the shows where the mother has had so many one nighters that they have no clue who the father is and keep trying again and again on the testing to get a positive, I guess the idea is to go after the guy for the child support only.

The reason why assistance is not available to the peole who really need it, is because of the people our government continues to allow to abuse the system.

Raising the allowed income requirements witout adding groundrules and restrictions will only put more americans on the permanent welfare payroleroll.

In otherwords I am tired of paying for these mothers to stay home to be baby breeders!!

Whence comes morality?

by Elizabeth Achtemeier

Dostoevsky once wrote, "If there is no God, everything is permissible." And that's true, isn't it? For we certainly don't learn to be moral from the society around us. Watch the talk shows and prime-time TV, listen to the boom box in the car next to you, attend a fraternity party, visit an inner city high school, and then describe morality.

From natural law or pragmatism?

Sure, there is a certain morality built into natural law. If a child falls into a well, the whole neighborhood will rush to rescue him. But his mother could have legally aborted him, had she chosen, before he was ever born. That's morality with a kink in it.

Morality can't be equated with pragmatism, with what works, either, because we have no agreed definition of that "what." If you want to be famous and rich these days, commit a horrendous crime and then write a book about it. That "works" very well and brings lots of rewards, but is that morality?

From conscience or ourselves?
"...From that Word morality is born, and we know what is Good."
Certainly morality doesn't come from following our conscience. As one of my professors used to say, "Sure, follow your conscience. Burn the witches." Conscience gets skewed by the sin that infects us all and falls victim to our selfishness and pride and blindness.

And of course the same can be said about our self-constructed morality. There is lots of talk these days about the fact that we are "moral agents," able to fashion our own right and wrong, able to choose between good and bad actions. That's often been the argument for giving women the unobstructed right to choose abortion. And so each individual is a law unto herself, and there is no agreed-upon Good to knit us all together into community, and what is moral is entirely relative.

From beyond

No, the good, the moral, the true must come from beyond us, from One who is untainted by our sinfulness and skewered consciences and kinked reasoning-from the One who made us, who knows what we are and what we are supposed to be, from the One who has a Good planned beyond all human action and who is constantly working to bring about that Good. Morality must come from God, the Creator and Guide of human life.

We may think that God's definitions for us of what is right and what is wrong are given us only in the form of law. "You shall not kill. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife." "A male shall not lie with a male as with a female." And of course the law is helpful. As Paul writes, "if it had not been for the law, I should have not known sin" (Rom. 7:7). The law tells us there is a morality beyond our relativism.

The good source

But finally morality stems from living day by day with the God of law and grace, from delighting in his presence and reveling in his love, from tasting his goodness and finding that there pour from his hand gifts so wondrous, so vitalizing, so transforming that life becomes the adventure of growing up into his goodness.

We find such a God only through the Holy Scriptures, through his revelation of himself to Israel and in his Son Jesus Christ. We can't discover him elsewhere-not in our earthbound experiences, not in our consciences, not in our consciousness raising, not in the world around us--all distorted by sin. But he reveals himself, by the work of his Spirit, through his Word, written and made flesh and proclaimed. And from that Word morality is born, and we know what is Good. "O Israel, O church, taste and see that the Lord is good!"

Meanwhile, there are so many women out there who would be wonderful, loving mothers who cannot get pregnant.

My sisterinlaw tried for 7 yrs to get pregnant. Had to go through invetro 4 times until it finally worked.

Now, a friend of mine has been trying for a year. She is so discouraged.

I'm sure the majority of people getting handouts and assistance are abusing the system.

My husband had a coworker who was married. She and her husband 'said' they were living apart so that they could get more taxes back and assistance.

Then you have the neighbors that lived across from us growing up - they took in as many foster kids as they could. They paid no attention to these children and let them run loose. These kids were breaking into our houses, stealing cars, not going to school. These people just wanted the money. The parents would call these kids names in front of them when they were outside: loser, sob, slob, ugly, etc. The whole situation was terrible.

Then, one day, a few months ago, I had to take a cab home. The cab driver was telling me how people in America will never be rich. He said that it's because we pay welfare. Apparently he had just taken home a client. This man had the cab driver pick him up once every other week or so and take him to the barber shop for a haircut. He had to go to his favorite barbershop that was many miles from his house. Round trip, the cab driver got $75. This was every time.

He had asked him that day why he went so far and paid $75 for a taxi to take him just to get his hair cut. You know what the guy said? Basically, he said 'I'm not paying for it. I'm on welfare and disability because I'm a drug addict. The government pays for it'.

Who knew you could be on disability because you are a crack head? That makes NO sense. And why are people on welfare/disability getting $ for taxi cabs and haircuts?

Another thing: My husbands coworker works at a seafood restaurant on the weekends. He says ever weekend they have people lined up to buy crabs with their food stamps. They have to wait for the crabs to be cool because there is some rule that food stamps cannot be used to purchase hot food. Now, I can understand needing food stamps if you can't afford milk, bread, fruit, cheese, food for your children, etc. But to buy crabs with them is just wrong...If you are buying crabs with your foodstamps then you must be able to afford the staples and dinner for your children (or else you're even more stupid otherwise).

It's just not fair for someone like me who works her ass off to make enough money to pay my bills. I don't expect handouts. I've been in bad situations growing up where we had no hot water for a year, the house almost foreclosed on 4 times, parents going bankrupt, electricity turned off, not enough food, no shampoo, etc, etc, etc. We never had anyone help us out, not even family. And to hear that people are using $ given to them for taxi cabs and haircuts, when there are others who really need the help, just blows my mind...Why am I taking care of people who are too lazy to work?

quote:

---

Originally posted by weeza3:

A wonderful article by one of my favorite editorialists. She asks some sobering questions.

Whence comes morality?

by Elizabeth Achtemeier

Dostoevsky once wrote, "If there is no God, everything is permissible." And that's true, isn't it? For we certainly don't learn to be moral from the society around us. Watch the talk shows and prime-time TV, listen to the boom box in the car next to you, attend a fraternity party, visit an inner city high school, and then describe morality.

From natural law or pragmatism?

Sure, there is a certain morality built into natural law. If a child falls into a well, the whole neighborhood will rush to rescue him. But his mother could have legally aborted him, had she chosen, before he was ever born. That's morality with a kink in it.

Morality can't be equated with pragmatism, with what works, either, because we have no agreed definition of that "what." If you want to be famous and rich these days, commit a horrendous crime and then write a book about it. That "works" very well and brings lots of rewards, but is that morality?

From conscience or ourselves?
"...From that Word morality is born, and we know what is Good."
Certainly morality doesn't come from following our conscience. As one of my professors used to say, "Sure, follow your conscience. Burn the witches." Conscience gets skewed by the sin that infects us all and falls victim to our selfishness and pride and blindness.

And of course the same can be said about our self-constructed morality. There is lots of talk these days about the fact that we are "moral agents," able to fashion our own right and wrong, able to choose between good and bad actions. That's often been the argument for giving women the unobstructed right to choose abortion. And so each individual is a law unto herself, and there is no agreed-upon Good to knit us all together into community, and what is moral is entirely relative.

From beyond

No, the good, the moral, the true must come from beyond us, from One who is untainted by our sinfulness and skewered consciences and kinked reasoning-from the One who made us, who knows what we are and what we are supposed to be, from the One who has a Good planned beyond all human action and who is constantly working to bring about that Good. Morality must come from God, the Creator and Guide of human life.

We may think that God's definitions for us of what is right and what is wrong are given us only in the form of law. "You shall not kill. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife." "A male shall not lie with a male as with a female." And of course the law is helpful. As Paul writes, "if it had not been for the law, I should have not known sin" (Rom. 7:7). The law tells us there is a morality beyond our relativism.

The good source

But finally morality stems from living day by day with the God of law and grace, from delighting in his presence and reveling in his love, from tasting his goodness and finding that there pour from his hand gifts so wondrous, so vitalizing, so transforming that life becomes the adventure of growing up into his goodness.

We find such a God only through the Holy Scriptures, through his revelation of himself to Israel and in his Son Jesus Christ. We can't discover him elsewhere-not in our earthbound experiences, not in our consciences, not in our consciousness raising, not in the world around us--all distorted by sin. But he reveals himself, by the work of his Spirit, through his Word, written and made flesh and proclaimed. And from that Word morality is born, and we know what is Good. "O Israel, O church, taste and see that the Lord is good!"

* Elizabeth Achtemeier, beloved friend of PPL, died on October 25, 2002 in Richmond, VA. Dr. Achtemeier was adjunct professor of Bible and Homiletics at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, VA. This column first appeared in the PPL News in our Spring, 1996 issue. It is reprinted here by permission of her family.

---

Smart women enlightened

I'm sad for us left here that she has gone to be with her heavenly Father; her voice will be missed here, but know she can pray for the world in a far better place.

You have left me speechless.

�

�

�

In going back to the back alley abortions which I agree were barbaric and inhumane, for that I agree. Yet I don't believe that to be a convincing enough argument in light of disposing of embryonic life.

To believe medical and psychological risks don't go hand in hand with many women who abort, is to be like one who chooses to:

see no evil
hear no evil
speak no evil
it's limiting the consequences to just one, when in truth there are many the woman will confront at some point post abortion. As the following article
discribes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
scroll down...

�

�

JAMA GYMNASTICS:
Jumping Through Hoops to Prove Abortion is Safe
David C. Reardon, Ph.D.

The American Medical Association has long supported legal abortion. Indeed, since 1972, the AMA's amicus briefs to the Supreme Court have generously provided Justice Harry Blackmun and his cohorts with a "medical" justification for abortion on demand. The crux of this "medical" justification is the claim that abortion is "safe" - specifically that the maternal mortality rate for legal abortion is lower than that for childbirth.

But in recent years the Supreme Court has finally begun to recognize that abortion involves other non-fatal risks, such as reproductive damage and psychological sequelae. Acknowledgment of these risks has played an important role in recent Court rulings which allow parental notice, waiting periods, and state established informed consent standards for abortion. Many states are now seeking to enact laws to protect the health of women in the manner allowed by these High Court decisions.

The AMA, however, has and continues to oppose these and any other regulations on abortion. Thus, to bolster its pro-abortion political position, and to provide "new" evidence for pro-abortion lobbyists in their legislative battles, the AMA is going to extraordinary lengths to convince the public, and its own members, that abortion is still safe. An important aspect of this campaign includes publication of propaganda pieces in the AMA's prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association, or simply JAMA. Two examples of this occurred in the last three months of 1992.

Denial of Post-Abortion Trauma

The first piece of propaganda came in the form of a commentary titled "The Myth of Abortion Trauma Syndrome," [JAMA, Oct. 21, 1992]. The author of this commentary, Nada L. Stotland, M.D., begins and ends her piece with the emphatic pronouncement that "there is no evidence" of post-abortion trauma, and that post-abortion trauma "does not exist." Given the abundance of published research to the contrary, and the complaints of thousands of former abortion patients, such absolutist statements display an unnerving abandonment of reason in favor of political ideology. Indeed, her thesis statements are patently inconsistent with the evidence even she herself presents!

As just one example, Stotland cites Lask's findings that 11% of the women studied reported adverse psychological effects six months after their abortions.(1) Rather than expressing concern about the 11 percent of women in this sample who suffered post-abortion psychological sequelae, much less worrying that this short-term study may have revealed just the tip of the iceberg, Stotland insists that this minority reaction is "proof" that post-abortion trauma "does not exist."

Stotland also reports only part of Lask's findings. In fact, Lask reports that 32% of those studied, one of every three abortion patients, had an "unfavorable" outcome to the abortion. This 32% included not only patients who suffered post-abortion mental illness, but also patients who regretted having the abortion, and patients who had moderate to severe feelings of guilt, loss, or self-reproach. It is also notable that these findings provide only a very limited view of unfavorable outcomes since Lask's study involved only short term follow-up. It does not show if these sequelae lessened or worsened over time, nor does it include sequelae among women who experienced delayed reactions as has been reported by other researchers.

Either Stotland sees in the literature only what she wants to see, or she is reporting only what she wants others to see. Another example of this bias is found in Stotland's summary of a study by Belsey and Greer of 360 women. Stotland makes broad claims that this study found that "the majority" felt relief and regained their pre-abortion mental health status. But once again, a reading of all of this study's findings reveals a different picture.(2)

Belsey's main finding is that 49% of the group (still a minority!) had experienced one or more maladjustments within 3 months after the abortion. Most importantly, Belsey found that the women most at risk of experiencing negative reactions could be pre-identified during pre-abortion screening. Belsey grossly summarized these high-risk screening criteria as: 1) a history of psychosocial instability, 2) a poor or unstable relationship with her partner, 3) few friends, 4) a poor work pattern, or 5) failure to take contraceptive precautions. Using these factors, Belsey identified 64% of the abortion patients she studied should have been referred for more extensive counseling. Of this high risk group, 72% actually did develop negative post-abortion reactions, compared to the low risk group of whom 28% experienced one or more maladjustments.

Post-Abortion Psychosis

A final example of Stotland's selective bias is her citation of a study by Brewer which reported an incidence of post-delivery psychosis of 1.7 cases per thousand compared to only .3 per thousand post-abortion patients.(3) However, Brewer's study has not only been criticized for serious methodological flaws, it has also been superseded by a much more sound study conducted by Henry David.(4) David's record link of 1.1 million Danish women found that in all categories the psychiatric admission rate was significantly higher for women who had abortions than for women who carried to term, and was almost four times higher among separated or divorced women.(5)

But even these results may under represent the true risks of abortion versus childbirth because David limited his search to three months post-event. This three month period was selected as likely to cover most cases of severe post-partum depression, but according to most experienced post-abortion clinicians this period is inadequate to track severe post-abortion trauma. Post-abortion trauma is often deeply repressed, and its symptoms may not be evident until triggered by much later events, such as the anniversary date of the abortion, or the birth of a later child.

One could write a small book commenting on all the all of Stotland's exaggerated claims and omissions of fact. But the main point here is that the prestige of JAMA is being used to lend credibility to biased and distorted views of post-abortion literature.

Why? Because there is a growing concern among pro-abortionists that the myth of abortions being "safe" is beginning to crumble under the pressure of injured post-abortion women speaking out and the post-abortion research and education efforts of pro-lifers. Thus, pro-abortionists, including the AMA hierarchy, are desperately trying to shore up this myth with a spate of new publications proving abortion's safety.
�

The AMA Reviving the Old Myths

The second example of JAMA propaganda is Council on Scientific Affairs special abortion report published in the December 9, 1992 issue.(6) The bulk of this report is focused on maternal and post-abortion mortality. Also included are brief presentations discounting any significant physical or psychological morbidity and an "analysis" which argues that state regulations of abortion through parental notice and waiting periods pose a "threat" to abortion safety.

In the mortality rate discussion, the Council Report repeats what is now the thoroughly discredited claim that prior to 1973 there were 1 million illegal abortions per year. It has been frequently demonstrated that this million abortions estimate had no rationale basis and was little more than a nice round number chosen for its propaganda value.(7) When this question is approached through statistical analysis of abortion related deaths, the actual rate of illegal abortions prior to Roe was surely well within the range of 100,000 to 200,000 per year.(8) This estimate is confirmed by the testimony of women seeking abortions which demonstrates that under 10% of patients would seek an abortion if it were still illegal.(9)

The Council Report also uncritically accepts the claim that maternal deaths from legal abortion have been accurately tabulated by the Center for Disease Control. This blind acceptance of official CDC data ignores the testimony of former abortionists who admit covering up of abortion related deaths,(10) and the testimony of pro-life investigators. One such investigator reviewed death certificates in Los Angeles County where the cause of death was listed as "therapeutic misadventure" and found incontrovertible evidence of four abortion deaths during only a twelve month period. During this same time period, the whole state of California reported no abortion related deaths and the CDC reported less than seven for the whole nation. These four deaths were uncovered in only one county, investigating only one hiding place, "therapeutic misadventure."(11) This and other evidence suggests that there is no reason to believe that the CDC numbers have any relationship to reality.

Still, the pro-abortion Council accepts the accuracy of the CDC's abortion data because of a 1978 "study" by pro-abortion activist, and former CDC employee, William Cates.(12) We have previously written a critique of the CDC data which includes a detailed examination of the blatant dishonesty which permeates this "study." In brief, the analysis of Cates, et al., is based on a statistical comparison of CDC data and NCHS data using the "Chandrasekaran-Deming theory" [sic] to prove that the CDC data represents at least 90% of all abortion related deaths. But upon investigation, the original statistical theory of C. Chandra Sekar and W. Edwards Deming (incorrectly cited by Cates), places strict limitations upon its use, all of which are violated in the CDC analysis.(13)

First, the Sekar-Deming theory applies only to independent survey techniques. NCHS and CDC data, however, are heavily interdependent. Second, the theory was developed for estimating the accuracy of national death and birth statistics and is valid only when the number of events being studied is very large, on the scale of hundreds of thousands or millions. But even the severest critics of abortion do not believe that the number of women dying from abortion are in the thousands or millions per year. Third, the Sekar-Deming theory assumes that the data reported from two independent sources represents an honest attempt at accuracy. It makes no allowances for deliberate deception, which critics believe is the primary cause for the underreporting of abortion related deaths.

Cates' inappropriate use of the Sekar-Deming statistical theory to defend the CDC's inadequate abortion surveillance data is an example of either gross stupidity or intellectual dishonesty. We suspect it is the latter. By uncritically parroting such indefensible trash, and ignoring all evidence to the contrary, the AMA Council Report is reduced to nothing more than a propaganda piece.

But the Council Report is flawed not only for what it accepts as facts but also for the facts that it omits. While pretending to have accurate measures of direct abortion related deaths, the Council totally ignores secondary deaths resulting from abortion morbidity. Indirect deaths resulting from latent abortion morbidity include deaths from ectopic pregnancies, complications of labor, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, suicide, drug abuse, and increased smoking patterns among post-abortion women, to name a few. A recent analysis of just a few of these abortion related complications indicates that the number of indirect deaths attributable to abortion morbidity exceeds 25,000 per year.(14)

An Incestuous Relationship

The AMA Council's review of immediate post-abortion complications is even more myopic. The Council deferentially turns to the National Abortion Federation (NAF) for data. The NAF, in turn, graciously supplies an estimate of one complication per 1000 abortions via a memo between the two advocacy groups. But even here, the abortionists can hardly avoid tripping over their own tongues. The same NAF letter which says the total complication rate is 1 per 1000, says that incomplete abortions occur at a rate of 2.3 per thousand, infections requiring intravenous treatment occur at 1.3 per 1000, perforation of the uterus .9 per thousand, and other problems requiring laparoscopy, laparotomy or transfusion occur at 1.1 per thousand, which together would total 5.6 per thousand - far more than the original "total complication rate" of 1 per thousand.

One is also left to wonder how the NAF has compiled these undocumented statistics, especially given the evidence that most injured women go to someone other than the abortionist for treatment because they are filled with shame, anger, and revulsion toward the abortionists.

But even on the face of it, asking the National Abortion Federation (NAF) for complication rates is like asking the American Tobacco Association for their estimate of the health impact of smoking. The only explanation for this deference to the NAF is the fact that the AMA Council is philosophically aligned with the NAF and therefore the NAF trade figures are servilely accepted as gospel.

Again, one could analyze every misused or misreported study cited by the AMA Council, but the few samples above are sufficient to call into question the objectivity of the Council Report. As in the case of Stotland's commentary, the Council Report is convincing only if nobody reviews the original sources.

Standing Our Ground

We believe that the AMA and other pro-abortion academic groups are feeling the pressure of pro-life research and education efforts which are successfully beginning to raise public awareness of abortion's risks. These JAMA articles are evidence that the pro-aborts are gearing up a counter-campaign to reassure the public that abortion is "safe" and to portray any regulation of the abortion industry as a threat to women's health.

The actual evidence is not on their side. But they do have lots of money, prestige, and easy access to journals in which to publish their propaganda. This is why it is especially important for the research efforts of experts critical of abortion safety must not only continue, but must be multiplied. We must not let their propaganda go unchallenged. We must continue to uncover, document, and teach the truth of abortion's dangers.

The pro-aborts know better than we do, the public is very uneasy with abortion on a moral level. If public confidence in the safety of abortion is ever shaken, the game is lost. Once pro-lifers succeed in showing how many women are being injured by abortion, public tolerance of this "necessary evil" will evaporate like summer dew.

Is it really worth killing babies, or even "potential" babies, if their mothers, rather than being helped, are actually getting hurt in the process? Of course not.

This is why the safety issue is the Achilles heel of abortion on demand. This is why post-abortion research and education projects need our support.
-DCR
NOTES

1. Lask, "Short-term psychiatric sequelae to therapeutic termination of pregnancy," Br J Psychiatry. 1975; 126:173-177 (1975).

2. Greer, Belsey, et al., "Psychosocial Consequences of Therapeutic Abortion: Kings Therapeutic Study III," Br. J. Psychiatry, 128:74-79 (1976); and Belsey, Greer, et al., "Predictive Factors in Emotional Response to Abortion: King's Termination Study - IV," Soc. Sci. & Med. 11:71-82 (1977).

3. Brewer, "Incidence of post-abortion psychosis: A Prospective Study," British Med. J., 1:467-477 (1977).

4. Rogers, et al., "Validity of Existing Controlled Studies Examining the Psychological Effects of Abortion," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 39(1):20-30 (1987).

5. David, et al., "Postpartum and Postabortion Psychotic Reactions," Family Planning Perspectives 13:88-91 (1981).

6. Council on Scientific Affairs, Council Report, "Induced Termination of Pregnancy Before and After Roe v. Wade: Trends in the Mortality and Morbidity of Women," JAMA 268(22):3231-3239 (1992).

7. Grisez, Abortion: The Myths, the Realities, and the Arguments (New York: Corpus Books, 1970) 35-42.

8. Hilgers & O'Hare, "Abortion-Related Maternal mortality: An In-Depth Analysis," New Perspectives on Human Abortion, Hilgers, et al., eds. (Frederick MD: University Publications of America, 1981) 69-91.

9. Reardon, Aborted Women - Silent No More (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987) 287-291.

10. Everett, The Scarlet Lady: Confessions of a Successful Abortionist (Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Brentwood, TN, 1991).

11. Feminists for Life amicus curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court, Webster v. Reproductive Health, October Term 1988, p21-22 with supporting documents filed.

12. Cates, et al., "Assessment of Surveillance and Vital Statistics Data for Monitoring Abortion Mortality, United States, 1972-1975," Am J Epidemiology 108:200-206.

13. Sekar and Deming, "On a Method of Estimating Birth and Death Rates and the Extent of Registration," American Statistical Association Journal, March 1949; Vol 44 pp 101-115.

14. Strahan, "Women's Health and Abortion II - Risk of Premature Death in Women From Induced Abortion: Preliminary Findings," Association for Interdisciplinary Research in Values and Social Change Newsletter, 5(2) 1993, available from NRL Educational Trust Fund, 419 7th St. NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20004 (202) 626-8800.�
------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by MammaLyme:
It is a little odd when the church that wants to ban abortion can molest little boys and get away with it. Is that why they are against abortion?

You must keep women the right to make their own choice. You did not live when women took coat hangers to themselves to abort a fetus. This is a decision on each woman it is her body. Tell me why so many women are having unprotected sex and then getting prenant, giving the child AIDS and this is what you all want? Come on these children suffer so much. Either take away their female organs if they have unprotected sex 20 times and children by 20 different men or make them have abortions but keep it legal.

---

Mammalyme,

#1 You cannot blame all Christians for the sins of some. I am not Catholic However I have nothing against that religion nor do I blame any of our nations problems on it.
I believe that the Catholics have been cornered because of isolated incidents within their religion. You can't blame the Church in a whole.
The Catholic church is the one that has been under scrutny for child molestation now that you have brought it up. You said is that why they are against abortion I assume you mean the Bush adminastration. He is not Catholic so I guess that flounders that idea.

#2 Protect the rights of women by keeping abortion legal or force women to have hystorectomy's.
Ever heard of an oxymoron. In a free Country you want to force a woman to remove her productive organs. Now that is totally different than legaliziing abortion! Trying to compare those two are crazy.

#3 If a woman choses to do bodily harm to herself that is herchoice. Just as it was her choice to have unprotected sex. Legalizing abortion made things easier on all. Think about.

Dear old dad can plug his daughter and take daown to clinic and get his spawn sucked out with nobody ever having having to know.

Alot of women that are raped never even report it because they feel guilty or are too embarased. That leaves more sexual predators on our streets . Out there waiting for you and me and our daughters!
These women can run to the clinic have it taken care of and then live in fear for the rest of their lives.

And then we have the rest! The teenagers and women that are probably victems of abuse that never recieved help were children of the baby breeders and drug addicks just repeating the cycle to repeated again and again and again and again and again.........

(Mammalyme)
Tell me why so many women are having unprotected sex and then getting prenant, giving the child AIDS and this is what you all want?

Our country was founded on the beliefs of the separation of CHURCH AND STATE.....period

This is a matter that should be handed by the churches-who should/will decide as a group what their religous beliefs are on the matter of abortion

We know organized religions view on this topic--so follow according to the religion that you practice.

But do not force your religious beliefs upon others

I personally feel that drinking is amoral....but I do not expect others to pertake in my beliefs..so I do not drink, others can chose for themshelves ( yes, I know abortion is a much tougher issue, but this is just a quick example of following your own religious beliefs)

Remember.....Once upon a time drinking was illegal!!

On a much more serious and grave note,

As to anyone who feels that a mother who's life is in danger due to complications of pregnancy, or is pregnant due to incest or rape........and feels that the women should not have abortion as a viable option

I would like to extend to you..... the option of working in an inner-city hospital....heck, let's give you a much needed crash course--let's send you right to the scene of some of the most violent crimes in the US--DETROIT, Michigan

Let's put you right in the heart of it...The DMC--Detroit Medical Center.

You will see rape victims that will give you nightmares, children, women, old, young, boys--you name it.

How about the man who shot the 34 yr old women for her car( to steal the car from her) and as she lay there dying....decided to rape her!!

she was unconcious from the loss of blood when they brought her into the ER--But
Just imagine that you survive the shooting--and you later find out that you are now pregnant--due to also being raped( she knew upon regaining conciousness that she had been raped)THIS IS A TRUE STORY

Some on this posting may comment that this just shows the inherent evil that is now within our societies, and that we must all ban together to remove all evil from our country

Great!!!!!But in the meantime---you just have to live in the real world--and cope the best that you can

So to all of those people, men or women, who oppose abortion under ANY circumstances....ask yourself these questions

If a rape happened to YOU(if you are a women), your Daughter,or your mother or sister---would you( or they) go ahead with the pregnancy---and not chose to abort....REALLY THINK AND FEEL WITH YOUR HEART AND SOUL ON THIS QUESTION!!!

Next really *painful* question............
Would your husband, or significant *other* be supportive in you carrying this pregnancy full term, and would you raise the child as your own( how does hubby feel about this?).........or would you, COULD YOU---place the child up for adoption

I would also like you to ask yourself the very same question again...but instead of thinking about it from your point of view....think about it as if it was your 16 yr old DAUGHTER!! Would you help her raise the child?---or would you like to see your grandchild placed up for adoption?............. Would you like to see her go though all of this.....on top of already being raped!

Men who oppose abortion for any reason...would you like to see your wife, or daughter or mother or your sister go though with the pregnancy( That resulted from a rape or incest).........and the biggest question... If it is your wife that was raped, do you want to raise this child as your own???

I'm most likely going to recieve quite the *flack* for my thoughts on this matter---but YOU really do have to ask yourself these questions....

And don't think that it can't happen to you....yes it can!!

These are not welfare mommies and crackheads that use abortion as back-up birth control--but women who are innocent victims--who did nothing to deserve this

Do YOU really want to decide their fate for them??

Whether you are pro-life, or pro-choice---abortion does have a place in this society--unfortunitly

By the way...if you are strongly pro-life, you may want to review your choice of conterception

IUD's and birth control pills allow life to be created......the womb is just to inhospitable of an enviroment for it to take hold.

My concern..... will the gov't be telling us what form of birth control we can use.....based on the above stated knowledge

Life is life....should we *protect* it from the moment of creation.....the first celluar division????

Be careful on this one......

* question............
Would your husband, or significant *other* be supportive in you carrying this pregnancy full term, and would you raise the child as your own( how does hubby feel about this?).........or would you, COULD YOU---place the child up for adoption

I would also like you to ask yourself the very same question again...but instead of thinking about it from your point of view....think about it as if it was your 16 yr old DAUGHTER!! Would you help her raise the child?---or would you like to see your grandchild placed up for adoption?............. Would you like to see her go though all of this.....on top of already being raped!

Men who oppose abortion for any reason...would you like to see your wife, or daughter or mother or your sister go though with the pregnancy( That resulted from a rape or incest).........and the biggest question... If it is your wife that was raped, do you want to raise this child
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You've given examples that are genuinely vivid and horrific to imagine.

It's true these events happen everyday to innocent women, it's the worst of humanity and I thank you for reminding us that all conceptions don't occur with love & protection.

In the case cited by you of the young girl, attacked and raped. It's my heartfelt opinion that under those dior circumstances, her age, her life being endangered by loss of blood. Her parents

could make the decision to give permission to use the 24 hr. drug RU--- ( can't recall the number.)

This would disrupt the fertilization progress in its earliest stages.

Should this family be of a moral position to allow this fetus's life to continue, they would likely be loving, supportive , merciful parents of this young woman.

They would choose to be there for their daughter in every ounce of the way; just as I know my husband and myself, and most parents would die for their children if needed be.

We would help her carry to full term, and place the child for adoption due to her age of 16 years. If she were of legal age 21 or older, she would need to decide for herself whether or not to love that innocent, give it life, and allow God to do what HE does best....... MIRACLES!

And replying to the comment made a post or two up our constution doesnt say seperation of church and state The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Heres where it was said.

The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)

The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.

The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.

Each form of government has a guiding principle: monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear. Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's. Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960). God was seen as the author of natural law and morality. If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community. The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.

Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship. Instead, it was to be our servant. The founding fathers believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights. Each person should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important. Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs. The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage. Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people. The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible: that Man's heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so. They firmly believed this and that's why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They wanted to make certain that no man could take away rights given by God. They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3) We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government. For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated. Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state? People have read too much into the phrase "separation of church and state", which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?

Our founding fathers who formed the government also formed the educational system of the day. John Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention although he was President of New Jersey College in 1768 (known as Princeton since 1896) and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His influence on the Constitution was far ranging in that he taught nine of fifty-five original delegates. He fought firmly for religious freedom and said, "God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."(4)

In October 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from schools in a case called Engel v. Vitale. The case said that because the U.S. Constitution prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion officials of public schools may not compose public prayer even if the prayer is denominationally neutral, and that pupils may choose to remain silent or be excused while the prayer is being recited. For 185 years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was opened with prayer. If the founding fathers didn't want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings? It is sometimes said that it is permissible to pray in school as long as it is silent. Although, "In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year old James Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time... the boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law."(4) The U.S. Supreme Court with no precedent in any court history said prayer will be removed from school. Yet the Supreme Court in January, 1844 in a case named Vidal v. Girard's Executors, a school was to be built in which no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever was to be allowed to even step on the property of the school. They argued over whether a layman could teach or not, but they agreed that, "...there is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality." This has been the precedent throughout 185 years. Although this case is from 1844, it illustrates the point. The prayer in question was not even lengthy or denominationally geared. It was this: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God's protecting hand in our lives? Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view. Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose? Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense. That Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing. They believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history. In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.

1. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802.

2. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (MI: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 243.

3. M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, N.H.: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), p. 4-5.

OH, Thank you Patrol for your reminder of what the true interpretation is re: Church & State.

Weeza:, You may need to reread my posting--the story that I refer to involves a 39 yr old women--who if my memory serves me correctly, she was driving home from the airport when this happened--it started out as a car jacking

She was a flight attendant for Northwest Airlines.....this has nothing to do with the topic here......other than it is of value to note that she may have had NO ONE around to contact for support...family or friends at the time....may have been a *new hire* So some one esle would have been calling the shots for her in the ER. Family would have been contacted later....after the patient was stablized.

The drug that you refer to-RU-486--I honestly DO NOT KNOW if they could have started this drug on her without her permission

BUT, it is still a drug that interfers with the creation of life....if you are of the belief that life begins at the moment of conception---many who are pro-life want this drug banned--many doctors will not perscribe this drug due to their religious beliefs

Remember....IUD's and Birth control bills( and other methodologies) prevent conception by creating an inhosbitable enviroment in the womb...the egg is indeed fertilized--but is unable to attach it'self to the womb, therefore unable to secure the nutrients that it needs to further devolope into a fetus

Anyway.....it is not my objective to change anyones thinking.......just to bring up some ideas that may have not been considered when you formed your opinion on this very Hot topic matter

Tree:, I am not sure of your gender...I believe that you are male...so I do have to ask you to think again....If there is a Mrs. Tree, and if she ever had the horriable experince of being raped and becoming pregnant because of the rape-would you be able to raise the child as your own--and/or, could you place this child up for adoption?

I don't expect you to share your answer here....because I DO believe you really have to seriously reflect upon this topic from all corners of your heart and soul before you can truly anwser that question

As far as the separation of church and state issue....and the article that you posted in responce to my statement of such......there are so many articles that you can cite regarding that issue.....from BOTH sides of the fence......that this could indeed go on for days and days

Surfice it to say...the issue of church and state has already been abused within the holy halls of justice within the U.S.A

I will come back at a later time and post some examples...with references, if you would like

But food for thought relating to the ability of man to write laws and create rules based upon judao-christian values

1) Most orginazed religions feel that abortion is wrong--morally and ethically, so based on this belief--we feel that we, as a god-loving society have the right to vote, and have this option removed from our constitution.........OK?.....con't to follow me here.....

2)Most religions believe that sex outside of marriage is WRONG....should we vote in a law to make pre-material sex illegal?

3) Same question regarding homosexuality--should we vote to criminialize homosexuality?

4) Most religions do not condone divorce--should we outlaw divorce?

5) Many religions do not believe in the ingesting of spirits---should we oulaw liquior?

6) And finally......Adultery--should we consider those who pertake in this *nat'l pastime* immoral(yes) and punnish them though criminal channels?

Why I set forth these examples.....you are pretty much *free* to chose to participate in the above mentioned **activities**, based on your own personal set of religious and ethical internal guidelines

Though I DO BELIVE IN SETTING certain retrictions and limitations relating to the availability of abortion.........I will remain pro-choice on this issue

Why?........Because You Have The Right To chose NOT to Have An Abortion--under any circimstances-and I whole-heartly support you in that decision

I also support those who chose to do otherwise.....(particuliary if this decision is NOT based on using abortion as a back-up method of birth control)......but I feel it is within our rights as a society to set limits on this sort of thing......as to decide if we are going to pay for this procedure, only allowing abortions very early in pregnancy (yes, there are indeed many many gray areas here.......but I am not hoping to debate those within the context of this posting.....theorically that could take days)

My point is.....I may or may not believe abortion is a sin.....I will leave that up to those who are placed in an unwanted pregnancy--and let them decide for themshelves

When their time on this earth is though....and they return to their maker...they will be judged accordingly.....just like you would be for adultury.

I am also not trying to state that my beliefs are any more important than yours...that's why we each get a vote.....just keep in mind that this is a gov't of the people,by the people--for the people

And that means people who may, or may not share your religious beliefs--that's why a choice here would seem to be the only fair option

You do not have to agree with abortion....to decide that you can not vote in clear conciense to make a decision for another human being!!

It may be that the purpose of that amendment is to protect religions from the state.

That's reasonable, because we know - and the American colonists certainly knew - that what is acceptable or mandated by one religion may be abhorrent to another. So if the state takes a position based on one religion it may be acting contrary to the teachings of another.

So the only way to be sure the state isn't stepping on any religions, is to keep religion out of the state.

It's really quite simple.

That was nowhere in the US states constitution when it was writen. If you go in and read in The Letter and everything about Seperation of Curch and State you will find that it has been blown way out of porportion. Not to mention revised time and again. No-one could even have a leg to stand on when they tried to stop Bush's Faith baised Funding!

Most of the people that refer to it have never even glanced at it and don't know a thing about it. I have done alot of research on it while trying to help my youth group start a Christian organization in their High School.

#2Did you ever think that laws could have helped women that were in cituations of Rape without opening up abortion to the entire nation? Our Government is not entirely heartless. I myself can't condone one and not the other.

Look at it this way. The whole Nation was horrified with the story of Lacey Peterson. Why only justice for her. Some wanted him punished for the murder of her son.

It seemed to me that it was written because they were haveing issues and needed something to resolve them.

But it was not to seperate God from the Schools, or the Businesses. It was so that the Government would not be byast. Back then they were more one on one with there towns people it was a whole nother world.

Like I said it has been blown way out of porportion.

Yankee In Black,
In my opinion, you're mixing apples & oranges. The main content of your reply I understand it to be, is about legislating morality with citing your examples of adultry, pre-marital sex, etc.

I view the question of abortion as a human rights issue and a moral imperative. Its basis in truth, the inerrant , inspired, Holy Scripture which says life is sacred, not to be tampered with.

As to your illustration of the 39 year old woman, yes, i'd want the baby to be given a chance to live. It would be interesting to do a study of just how many women actually do conceive under those circumstances.

The mind / body connection is so powerful and the Sovereignty of God so often present under those extreme situtations.

Possibly conception is aborted by miscarraige or the traumatized body itself may make conception unlikely. I'll see if I can find literature to support this hunch.

In closing, no, government will be ineffective in attempting to control specific lifestyle choices involving whether or not one chooses to live within moral boundaries.
Therein is personal autonomy. You alone will personally be affected by your choices.

A.�� We don't cure illness by killing the patient.� Aborting a child with a disability or illness is the height of prejudice.� When a family learns that the child they are expecting may have a special need, that family needs support and good solid medical information -- not the death of their most fragile member.� Society must flee this attitude that uses arbitrary yard sticks to measure peoples worth.

B.�� When a woman has been raped or a victim of incest, she has been the victim of a terrifying act of violence of� which she is a true victim.� Tragically, we are some times faced with a second victim of this great crime committed by the rapist, a baby.� While pregnancy is extremely rare from rape, it can happen.� The cruelest thing that can happen to the women in question is to now be pitted against her child, who is the second victim. In several studies done across America, women who were encouraged to use abortion in such circumstances felt that they had been put through a second act of violence, the violence and pain of the mechanical rape of abortion.� Worse than that, they stated feelings of being made into the victimizer of their own child. they felt that their baby had paid with his/her life for the crime of the rapist.

Link between rape and pregnancy

Scientists have made a disturbing finding about rape which they believe may explain why the crime has been so common throughout history.
They have found that a single act of rape may be more than twice as likely to make a woman pregnant than a single act of consensual sex.

This suggests, they say, that in a strictly biological sense, rape is a successful way for a man to spread his genes.

But such a theory fails to take account of either the emotional trauma that rape causes, or the fact that for rape to be a successful evolutionary strategy the benefits of the crime have to outweigh the potential costs for the rapist if he is caught.

Psychologists have also warned that it may be misinterpreted by those seeking to justify the unjustifiable.

Violence study

New Scientist magazine reports that researchers Jon and Tiffany Gottschall, from St Lawrence University in Canton, New York, looked at data from a major study of violence against women.

They found that, of 405 women who had been raped between the ages of 12 and 45, some 6.4% became pregnant.

When women who had been using some form of contraception were removed from the calculation, the figure jumped to nearly 8%.

They compared this finding with a separate study which found the proportion of women in a similar age group who got pregnant from a one-night stand or other one-off act of consensual sex was just 3.1% despite the fact the women were not taking precautions.

The Gottschalls believe one possible explanation is that women feel more attractive and sexy when ovulating and unconsciously give off signals that rapists might pick up.

Another possible explanation is that rapists target attractive and healthy-looking women.

Difficult conclusions

Ged Bailes, head of forensic clinical psychology at the Norvic Clinic in Norwich, told BBC News Online, it was very difficult to draw any firm conclusions from a one-off study.

He said: "Rape is complex behaviour which is often associated with power, control and sadism.

"How do things like that fit into an evolutionary theory? And if this was the case why would some rapists want to kill their victim?

"We have to be very careful about making inferences of this type because there is a danger that they will reinforce some people's views about the myths surrounding rape."

Myra Johnson, communications manager for the Women's Aid Federation, a charity which helps women who have been the victims of domestic violence, warned against drawing the wrong conclusions from the report.

She said it was vital that any notion of a possible evolutionary basis for rape should not detract from the personal responsibility that a rapist had for the devastating impact of his actions.

She also told BBC News Online: "In our experience rape is used in domestic violence to exert power and control, and not necessarily to spread one's genes."

The separation of Church and State is the idea that gov'ts should not have a religion, should not subscribe to religious beliefs, should not exhibit religious behaviors, and should not impose a religion, or lack of a religion upon it's citizens.

The separation of church and state is related to the idea that all people should have a freedom of religion, as well as freedom from religion.

So you see....it can protect religions from the state

But it also can protect the state from religions

Sorry, but that's exactly what I was talking about with abortion being an issue that involves the separation of church and state

Tree and others posted information on one viewpoint in reinterpeting this idea, and here are several sites that proved information regarding strict separation of church and state
www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html

As american citizens, we need to realize that there are many people represented within this country who do not share the same religious beliefs, and all must fairly be heard and accounted for----not just the religious right

Are you aware of what the correct term is for someone who is strongly partial to their own religion, race, political viewpoints and is intolerant of those who differ??

According to the American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd edition............

It's BIGOT, and enforcing those beliefs upon others is considered *BIGOTRY*

This posting is For your information....I am not including anyone who posted on this thread as being a bigot, but we have been debating(and being quite civil) the topic of abortion, and though, as you may have figured out from my previous postings......I am not exactly a fan of abortion on demand, and would never have one myself.......

I feel very strongly about NOT imposing my beliefs on others

It is their choice to make-----not ours!!!

Because I have been losing posts that I have spent time typing on(I'm not a great typist) I am going to con't this on another posting on this same thread

Weeza:,
No, I cannot agree that the examples that I listed regarding morality are *Apples and Oranges* since the very defination of morality is the concern with the judgement of the goodness or badness of human actions and charactor, i.e., being ethical

If you are basing banning abortion on the religious belief that it is the taking of an innocent life...which would ethically be wrong......and if you are one who would like to see our country follow are more moral and ethical road....it just seems to follow suite that these *lifestyle* choices would indeed be next on the agenda

Many of which are mentioned as sins in The Ten Commanments

Many of which Do involve human rights

So my question is...How far do we want to go with banning actions and beliefs that do not fall within the critia of our chosen religious persuasion?

Careful here....This has been the cause of wars in generations long ago ( Civil War, many European conflicts) regarding many religious mores( too much to list here)

Regarding Programs available to help victims of incest or rape:

I have not openly stated this in my prior postings....but I spent a good many yrs working and training in inner-city hospitals

I am a pharmacologist with 23 yrs experince under my belt

So I saw **The War Zone** first hand, and second and third hand

I have 2 aunts who are social workers in Wayne Co. Michigan--proud county that houses Detroit-fabled city of violence

My Mother, and grandmother were both RN's who worked in Detroit..........for YEARS

I have spent much time volunteering in both civic and religious capacities

Have done missionary work, here and aboard

I was born and raised a Catholiac--so you know my values are pretty darn conservative

And I entered my young years very much resembling the young Micheal J Fox on Growing Pains---a Reaganite Republican

But as Barry Goldwater once noted: Those who start out in life as liberal.....will usually find themshelves becoming more conservative over time, and those who start out conservative......will become more liberal over time

What Goldwater ment was that life will have a way of showing you experinces that will re-shape you and poss. alter your beliefs over time

That's exactly what 23yrs did for me-made me much more humanistic

And it also showed me that many of those plans and protections that you mentioned for said victims......either do not work, are not followed though with, or are never implicated anyway( not poor enough, a minor who needs parental permission to recieve the pysch help,- and the parent won't sign--says gotta work, cannot get them in for the pysch treatments, ect. ect., ect.)

Many fall thru the cracks

If we are to completely bann abortion....we MUST have the social services in place to handle those victims that have no other way of coping with this tragedy

Disabled children: I can honestly say that I did not see/ know of anyone who aborted their baby due to this....and there does seem to be some pretty good programs in place with babies born with disabilities.This is but a very limited opinion on this matter--as it was not something I encountered often.

Regarding welfare mommies and crackheads and their poor babies-----I have to say.....coming from the past welfare capitol of the US (Detroit) don't get me started there............you don't want to go there....my religious spirit is in very short stay on that topic matter!!

As to those of you who volunteer your time and energies to those who are sufffering an unwanted/unexpected pregnancy and are pro-life

I commend you!!! Because you are part of the few and the proud that actually *Puts their money where their mouth is*

This is the sucessful way to guide others with your religious beliefs--living what you preach!! You are a role model for others.

Not shooting doctors who prove the service

Two wrongs equal a right?......I don't think so!!!!

So.. in summary--though I am not a fan of abortion at all... but because of the many experinces that I have been *Witness* to, and because I do believe in the separation of church and state........and because I do not believe we currently have enough programs available to help these women under the Bush watch..........and because I am in no-way sure that there are enough, loving, caring families who would adopt all these children(many, but not enough--show me the proof to change my mind)

Creation of human life

There are two topics that warrant study here

1st) I agree with the fact that life begins at conception

But do all religions feel this way, and should we impose our belief system on them? On those who don't share that belief.

Many agree that life is life once it can substain it'self outside of the womb

Well, currently medical advances are making that happen at a earlier and earlier stage in gestation

So regarding Baby Connor--Lacy Petterson's son----If he had been born on the day lacy was murdered--yes, Connor was far enough along that he would have survived outside of the womb--so I agree he should also be named in the Peterson Trial

2nd question.......Here's where it can indeed get rather *stickey*

If life is created at the moment of conception, and you are pro-life:

Can you in all due conscience use many forms of birth control that are currently available

This is NOT *Apples and Oranges* here, because it is well understood and KNOWN that in my forms of BC--conception takes place--but can not thrive due to the inhospitable enviroment created by these methods

From The Dictionary Of Psychology:
Contraception: The term used for several methods of birth-control which prevents the ovum from being fertilized by the sperm cell.

Strictly speaking, a method such as the IUD is not a true contraceptive,since it functions by preventing the implantation of a already fertizled egg into the uterine wall

This TERMINOLOGICAL*NICEETY* is, however, ignored by MANY!(End Quote)

This is why many religious organizations frown upon this type of birth control

but if you are a staunch pro-lifer--and you haven't checked into which forms of BC are a culprit of this.....

Should you not??......and chose to follow to live your life according to your own values??

I post all this not to offend anyone.....but to place another slant on this thread that had not been here prior

It should be rather obvious that I have put alot of soul searching and thought into my reasons why I chose to vote one way or another on this topic matter

I feel that this matter needs much thought

quote:

---

Originally posted by yankee in black:
Hello,

Tree:, I am not sure of your gender...I believe that you are male...so I do have to ask you to think again....If there is a Mrs. Tree, and if she ever had the horriable experince of being raped and becoming pregnant because of the rape-would you be able to raise the child as your own--and/or, could you place this child up for adoption?

---

Iam Male, God forbid those things would happen to my wife or any girl.
But I would raise the child myself.
Or put it up for adotion if I couldnt afford to raise a child there are plenty of people out there that would make loveing careing parents.

quote:

---

Originally posted by yankee in black:
[B]First off, Let's *Correctly* define the separation of church and state

Tree and others posted information on one viewpoint in reinterpeting this idea, and here are several sites that proved information regarding strict separation of church and state

---

I was not reinterpeting this Idea.

I was stating fact read what I showed you this history of our country Ill stick by the founding fathers.
Not by wrongly interpeted court justices who dont know our history.
And they the Fathers of this country continually qoute God ie the bible and they did not want government making laws or infringing on religous freedom period.

No state church, like when they left there respective countries in the first place.

The law is just.
The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That is self explanatory.

Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:

Posting again;

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)

The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.

The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Does the First Amendment declare the "Separation of Church and State?" Probably 99% of the people in America today have been brainwashed into saying "yes." But it does not! Reference to Separation of Church and State does not appear in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, or any of our country's official documents. It does, however, appear in another prominent document, the constitution of the former Soviet Union: "The church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state and the school from the church." (Article 52)

The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (emphasis added). What does this say about what the Church can or cannot do? What does it say about what a Christian citizen should or should not do? Absolutely nothing!

The First Amendment forbids the federal government from restricting religion in any manner. A wall inhibits people equally on both sides; the First Amendment inhibits only the Congress. The establishment clause was only intended to stop the formation of a national church; and so it must be seen as merely a further limitation on government from restricting people from freely exercising their faith.

Where, then, did we get this idea of a "wall of separation between Church and State?" It comes not from the First Amendment, but from a private letter written in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut, thirteen years after the First Amendment was signed. His comments are third-hand, which no court of that day would consider.

Jefferson gave a speech to a Baptist association during his presidency. Because he wanted to establish common ground with them in his message, he borrowed a phrase from one of their theologians to use. The context in which he used the phrase "wall of separation" was to reassure them that the national government would not establish a national government supported church denomination to be superior to all other denominations. The "wall of separation" phrase was meant as an allusion to a wall around a church to keep the government from interfering.

In the first 150 years of the federal court system, Jefferson and his phrase appear less than a dozen times. But in the last 50 years of the federal court system, Thomas Jefferson and his phrase appear in over 6,000 cases.

We didn't use Jefferson in earlier generations for a very real reason. Although Jefferson is credited today as some form of authority regarding the First Amendment, he had absolutely nothing to do with writing it. Jefferson was not a delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, he was not a signer of he Constitution, nor was he a member of Congress in 1789. He did not participate in any amendment debates, nor was he a member of any state legislature or ratifying convention at any time relevant to passage of the First Amendment. In fact, he was not even in this country when the First Amendment was written. He was serving as U.S. Minister to France throughout this time.

Governor Morris spoke on the floor of the Constitutional Convention 173 times - more than any other founder. He is the man who wrote the Constitution of the United States. He is the penman of the Constitution, the one who took all the words and put them together.

In 1790 and 1791 he wrote two commentaries on the Constitution. He said "Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man to God." Does this sound anything like the public policy we have today?

On the same day, that Congress passed the First Amendment to the Constitution, they also passed the Northwest Ordinance, which established the government for the future states North and West of the Ohio River. Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance says: "Knowledge, morality, and religion being essential for the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education are to be forever encouraged."

One of the first acts of the first Congress of the United States was an act to establish chaplains for the U.S. House and Senate. That same year, President George Washington spoke to the Committee representing the United Baptist Churches in Virginia, about the need to "establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny and every species of religious persecution."

Jefferson, as president, signed legislation appropriating sums of Christian missionaries to the Indians and establishing the tax-exempt status of churches. The separation of church and state was so foreign to the roots of America that Congress even approved a special printing of the Bible for use in public schools.

For decades our nation functioned under the interpretation of the First Amendment to the Constitution as permitting the free exercise of religion. But, failing to heed the warning of Jefferson and Madison's warning about "modern interpretations," our courts began to view the Constitution as a "living document," and the result has been serious erosion of religious freedom. The wording of the First Amendment has been twisted to mean that our citizens shall have freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion.

In 1947, the first "modern interpretation" referring to church and state, was utilized in a court ruling as meaning the government should be neutral regarding religion. The question remains: How could such an absurd decision occur? The answer is obvious: these Justices were political judges, not constitutional judges. The Court, at that time, did not have a single judge with any prior judicial experience! Despite the oath the Justices took upon entering office, the Court did not intend to follow the original intent and uphold the constitution. It intended to make the nation's policies reflect its own personal philosophical views.

The founders would have been dumbfounded at the campaign to drive even the most innocuous religious expressions from the public square. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story appointed by the author of the First Amendment, observed: "The general is not universal sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as it was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship."

It is ludicrous to suppose that the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to outlaw prayer and Bible reading in public schools, when on that same day, they passed legislation intended to promote morality and religion in public schools!

As we learn in high school, judges are the interpreters of our laws. They don't write laws, they interpret them. Judges read the words the legislative branch has written and passed; examine the obvious meaning of those words and the context in which they are found; and when there is an ambiguity, they research and consider the legislative history surrounding the text of the law to discover what the legislators meant when they passed it.

Legislative history is the record of the committee hearings in which the law originally was discussed, before it was sent by the committee to the floor of the larger legislative body for consideration. Legislative history also includes the speeches given on the floor of the House of Representatives and the Senate before the final vote on the law occurs. Committee testimony and floor speeches are often used to clarify exactly what the framers of the law intended, when they drafted it and adopted it into law.

In the case of the Constitution, part of the legislative record are the Federalist Papers, which were newspaper columns written by supporters of the Constitution, explaining to the people of the thirteen states why they should ratify the Constitution and give limited powers to a newly formed federal government.

By now, most conservatives are aware that the words "separation of church and state" appear no where in the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the Federalist Papers. They are not the law; neither are they part of the legislative history of the law. The doctrine or separation of church and state is a fabrication of blatantly liberal, anti-Christian, dishonest, activist judges. In fact, the words,"separation of church and state" are only words taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. They exist nowhere in the laws of our nation.

Earlier, I said I would prove that the doctrine of separation of church and state is a scam, and that I would do so with one word; just one word. That is easily done. On a recent radio show, I handed a co-host a copy of the U.S. Constitution and asked him to read the First Amendment out loud over the air. He began to read, but I stopped him after the first word. "That's enough. You have read enough. You don't have to read further. You have settled the debate already," I said.

What was that one word that ended the debate over separation of church and state. That word is "Congress."

Read it for yourself. The First Amendment says that congress shall make no law establishing a religion. It doesn't say that states cannot establish a religion or observe religious holidays. It doesn't say that cities, counties, or school districts cannot show respect for the Bible or Christianity. The First Amendment doesn't imply in even the vaguest way that it is unconstitutional for a city to erect a manger scene in the town square at Christmas or for a school teacher to offer up a prayer to Almighty God at a graduation ceremony or before daily classes begin. You cannot get that out of the First Amendment, even if you stretch.

It's right there, plain as day. The First Amendment only limits Congress; no one else. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Congress cannot establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. But, you say, the Founders must have wanted to prevent governments at all levels from showing preference for any one religion over others. Not so. The states would not have given Congress any authority over their actions regarding such matters.

At the time the Constitution was ratified by the thirteen original states, not only did Congress hold long, fervent prayer meetings and quote directly from scripture in speeches and floor debates, but a number of the original 13 states had in existence official state churches with official names like The Church of Maryland. Official state churches. And they were overtly Christian.

Those state churches were not limited by the First Amendment, nor did they cease to exist after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because the First Amendment did not affect them. The First Amendment was designed solely to prohibit Congress from establishing a national church like the Church of England; a political church that many of the colonists had come to the New World to escape. The Founders merely wanted to prevent the federal government from forcing one sect of Christianity upon the entire country.

If you think the Founders supported the doctrine of separation of church and state, consider these quotes:

The U.S. Supreme Court in The Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. said, "Religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government, and preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind." Clearly, the U.S. Supreme Court once thought that the U.S. could not have good government without religion.

The U.S. Supreme Court also said in the same case, "Our laws and our institution must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extend, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." Has one word of the Constitution been changed since the court issued this decision in 1892, a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified, declaring that America is emphatically Christian?

Consider these words from the Northwest Ordinance, approved by Congress in 1789, "Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, school and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." There it is again, we must have religion if we are going to have good government, and they tie religion to schools. In fact, the very first English Bibles printed in America were paid for by the U.S. Congress with public money, and inside the cover of those Bibles it says that they were for use in our schools.

John Adams, our second president said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the House in the early days of the Republic, said, "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them, either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man, either by the Bible or by the bayonet." Judge Roy Moore is right. The Bible is the basis for our laws. We end up with more government and less freedom when we refuse to be governed by morality and religion.

James Madison said, "We have staked the whole future of American Civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institution...upon the capacity of of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

George Washington, our first president and the father of our country, said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

Consider these additional quotes that demonstrate that the Founders were overtly Christian, not just religious men. Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been offered asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." Multi-culturalism to the Founders did not mean that we ceased to be a Christian nation, but that we were tolerant of others and allowed them to worship freely. We did not force them to become Christians and they did not force our nation to cease to be Christian.

Yankee In Black, Your comments are appreciated. They've given me a headache though as I have to think too much....LOL

Think about it. Get government out of your private decisions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MammaLyme:
This is the woman's body and she should have the choice. When she meets her maker, that is for him to decide not the government. This is her offspring and her ansestry. This should be her choice, not you, not Bush just her. They will then get after doctors who perform abortions just like they did in the past. There is nothing in the Bible to say you should not do this.

---

Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? (Job 31:15).

Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God (Psalm 22:9-10).

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).

This is what the LORD says--he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you ... (Isaiah 44:2).

Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you (Isaiah 46:3-4).

And now the LORD says--he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength (Isaiah 49:5).

The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:41-42, 44).

I plea to not add this to your sins But if you do there is forgiveness.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
And we all have sinned a baby hasnt.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Think about it. Get government out of your private decisions.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I believe in get the government out of your private decisions too.
And that means money for abortions should not be provided since it comes out of my taxes????and since its partly my money I choose not too contribute too this.

In the Bible within Gods moral law, He says;
You Shall Not Murder.

As a person whose faith is in the inspired word of the Lord, His word also tell us that we are not our own; that we have been bought with a price by the death of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, our bodies are not ours to do with as we want. We are created beings of the God of the Universe, Creator God, The I AM.

We own nothing that has not been given to us Mamma Lyme. Try as some will to keep government out of our lives, God is still the one in authority over all mankind.

Can you possibly believe the one who "creates" has turned over to us the will to decide whether or not His created being can have life or not?
That perception is so misguided or rooted in pride and arrogance.

If a person places their heart and faith in Jesus Christ the son of God, there will be forgiveness of all our sins when there is genuine repentance for our sins. The taking of a life, is sin.

Infanticide within scripture is an abomination to God; He is grieved that we can come to such a place in our culture where even the idea is diametrically opposes to the character and nature of a Life Affirming Maker.

Because no matter how much people want to think that is not true. That is the message that lagal abortion sends.

Maybe we need to find some statistics. I believe that the majority of abortions that are performed are to unwed mothers who have unprotected sex with multiple sex partners. Maybe if these women had to take some responcibility for their actions they might change their sexual habbits.

In 54 countries (61% of the world population) abortions are legal.
In 97 countries (39% of the world population) abortions are illegal.
There are approximately 46 million abortions conducted eacy year, 20 million of them obtained illegally.
There are approximately 126,000 abortions conducted each day.
Abortion Statistics - U.S.

Approximately 1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S. according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Click here to see the approximate number of abortions in the U.S. per year from 1973-1996. In 2001, 1.31 million abortions took place.
88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.
60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.
47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.
43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old.

Abortion Statistics - U.S.

Approximately 1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S. according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Click here to see the approximate number of abortions in the U.S. per year from 1973-1996. In 2001, 1.31 million abortions took place.
88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.
60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.
47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.
43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old.
Abortion Statistics - Demographics
Age - The majority of women getting an abortion are young.

52% are younger than 25 years old and 19% are teenagers. The abortion rate is highest for those women aged 18 to 19 (56 per 1,000 in 1992.)
Marriage - 51% of women who are unmarried when they become pregnant will receive an abortion. Unmarried women are 6 times more likely than married women to have an abortion. 67% of abortions are from women who have never been married.
Race - 63% of abortion patients are white, however, black women are more than 3 times as likely to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely.
Religion - 43% of women getting an abortion claimed they were Protestant, while 27% claimed they were Catholic.
Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.
Abortion Statistics - Using Contraception (U.S.)

54% of women having an abortion said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant.
90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception
8% of women having an abortion say they have never used contraception.
It is possible that up to 43% of the decline in abortion from 1994-2000 can be attributed to using emergency contraception.
Abortion Statistics - Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice

According to a USA Today, CNN Gallup Poll in May, 1999 - 16% of Americans believe abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy and 55% of American believe abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.
According to a Gallup Poll in January, 2001 - People who considered themselves to be pro-life rose from 33% to 43% in the past 5 years, and people who considered themselves to be pro-choice declined from 56% to 48%.
The majority of these statistics were taken from The Alan Guttmacher Institute.

Approximate number of abortions in the U.S. per year (based on assumptions by the Alan Guttmacher Institute).

1996 - 1,365,700
1995 - 1,363,700
1994 - 1,431,000
1993 - 1,500,000
1992 - 1,528,900
1991 - 1,556,500
1990 - 1,608,600
1989 - 1,566,900
1988 - 1,590,800
1987 - 1,559,100
1986 - 1,574,000
1985 - 1,588,600
1984 - 1,577,200
1983 - 1,575,000
1982 - 1,573,900
1981 - 1,577,300
1980 - 1,553,900
1979 - 1,497,700
1978 - 1,409,600
1977 - 1,316,700
1976 - 1,179,300
1975 - 1,034,200
1974 - 898,600
1973 - 774,600
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

----------------------------------

Why Abortions Are Performed

The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.

Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;

1% because of fetal abnormalities;

3% due to the mother's health problems.

Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)

Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%

Abortions Worldwide
Number of abortions per year: Approximately 46 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 126,000

Number of Abortions Performed in the United States
(AGI) (CDC)
1973 744,600 615,831
1974 898,600 763,476
1975 1,034,200 854,853
1976 1,179,300 988,267
1977 1,316,700 1,079,430
1978 1,409,600 1,157,776
1979 1,497,700 1,251,921
1980 1,553,900 1,297,606
1981 1,577,300 1,300,760
1982 1,573,900 1,303,980
1983 1,575,000 1,268,987
1984 1,577,200 1,333,521
1985 1,588,600 1,328,570
1986 1,574,000 1,328,112
1987 1,559,100 1,353,671
1988 1,590,800 1,371,285
1989 1,566,900 1,396,658
1990 1,608,600 1,429,577
1991 1,556,500 1,388,937
1992 1,528,900 1.359,145
1993 1,500,000 1,330,414
1994 1,431,000 1,267,415
1995 1,363,690 1,210,883
1996 1,365,730 1,221,585
1997 1,365,730 (NRLC estimate)
1998 1,365,730 (NRLC estimate.)
1999 1,365,730 (CIRTL estimate.)

40 MILLION ABORTIONS SINCE 1973

4,000 each day

Frightening statistics Jill. All these young women with often multiple abortions will surely have to deal with post abortion psychological issues at some point in their life.

Rape, incest, mothers health and life. That is a very, very, low percentage isn't it. That means that all the rest are well, you know what the rest are.

As for the childs health and mothers health. I have been there and done that. Luckily my daughter turned out fine. She nearly went blind in one eye but after surgery and time it has gotten better. We knew I had problems as early as 3 months. My placenta started abubtion at 25 weeks. I spent 2 months in the hospital flat on my back. Then the Dr's couldn't stop it anymore.

She came 1 1/2 months early. I hemoraged and she took the blood into her lungs. They took her by c-section. She nearly died. They shipped her to a neo natal unit at a larger hospital. When I got out I stayed with her as much as I could. I stayed at the Ronald McDonald House and took the Shuttle bus to see her.

She had a long recovery. They had to suction her lungs. Give her steroids. She had jaundice. She was on 100% oxigen but they kept lowering it till she eventually came off of it. But we survived. Just me and her.

You see my X was a deadbeat. He had left us alone. No money no nothing. I had a high risk pregnacy but I managed to find a place to live, furnish it, I didn't have a car but I depended on my family for some things. I did what I had to do to keep my baby. I was 19 years old.

Luckily 2 years later I met a wonderful man. Who loved us both. After we were married we went to court and had my X's rights terminated and he legally adopted her.
She see's her paternal grandmother every summer we all love her verymuch. She knows the whole story but she will tell you this.
I may have 2 fathers but I only have 1 Daddy.

These women terminate their pregnacies expecting the worst things in life to happen. Jordan was the greatest gift that God could have ever given me. Abortion could have been a choice for other women in a cituation like mine. Had I have chosen abortion I can't imagine what path I would have gone down without that preciuos life that I made. We all have a choice. Two roads.

Also, maybe stem cell research will end up curing lyme disease which would be fantastic.

Maybe this Topic has run its course. We are just going around in circles saying the same things over and over again.

Mammalyme we are not talking about Bush. Or at least I think we had moved away from that.

We can post Bible scriptue all day. Going on about laws. Wars and morality and truth. You are mingling things together that have nothing to do with one another. Yes, in one since they both deal with the taking of a life but on totally different levels. On a grand scale no loss of life is worth it.

But I guess it has to measured in accordance by law. I don't think that abortion is constituted to be measured by law. That unborn child has not harmed another, It has committed no crime, It has asked for nothing other than to be given a chance at life. So what right does the Unithed States have to take the life of that unborn child.

A wonderful story you have of strenghth, character, and love.
I have a somewhat similar story in my own background.

Despite that,though..and despite ALL the genuine concerns and feelings in seeing this as a black and white issue,

IMO, you leave ALLOT od major significance OUT, and..bottom line, no matter what you, your friend, your minister, mother, whomever would do,

I still stand that you have NO right to judge, little to no understanding of the complexities of abortion and the complaxities with in it, within banning it outright..

and I feel even more strongly that all the very valid points raised should not, and CAN NOT be dealt with by a Federal ban.

Also..the realistic level of harm a Federal ban on abortion would create is completely ignored in the stance supporting banning. Completely ignored.

Again, many points made are compassionate and good, but they are coupled with an unacceptable level of judgement and dismissal, and looking at this issue from an extremely limited point of view.

IMO.

Mo

Cindy, I just read your story of all that you went through to bring Jordan into the world.
At age 19, you must have been scared to death and your husband deserting you when you needed him.
I admire your courage to put your faith in God that he would take care of you in this scary situation. I'm willing to bet that Jordan has been a real source of joy and that her spirit is so sweet.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MammaLyme:
"Think about the poor women that would be raped and hating their child inside her. She would not want her genes to co mingle with this horrible person's genes. This is just not right"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mammalyme,
I understand that when we look at it unless we believe, that God can take the worst circumstances and turn them into a story that will bring glory to His name . This is what He does best.

As far as a rapists genes go; again God has the ultimate control over that creation. I believe every newborn baby comes into the world with a clean, clear conscience; a clean slate if you will.

1. What determines how a person will develop in this life is a combination of its nurture(how well it is loved in its most critical years 1-3yrs.)
2. How it is taught early in life to respect others, themselves, and develop a healthy self worth, knowing they were created for a good purpose here in this life.
3. personality traits: each human being is unique in their genetic blueprint. I simply do not believe that murderers, rapists, the worst ciminals were born that way, but were made throughout their socialization ot lack thereof to their society.

The woman who chooses to hope for the best in her share of genetic make-up and the potential good to come from an individual life.

The Lord God says; "The present generation is not accoutable for their parents sins"

or the sins of the Father's shall not be visited upn their children.