If you could change one law in your country, what would it be?

Yeah, most people (except over-educated pedants like myself) follow what the party they support suggests.
Sometimes it's very helpful to pick up the cards to see whose policies are the most similar.
The other useful thing about the prefencing system is that the scrutinisers make a note of who receives preferences from other parties. It means that if (say) the Liberal party is receiving second preferences from (say) Grey-Power party voters, then they know how many Grey-Power voters might support them first if they tweak their policies a bit and become more like Grey-Power.

wow...id probably legalize pot...and i know people are gonna yell at me for that...but so many people do drugs just to be "doing something bad"...if it wasnt considered "bad" anymore, i know at least 10 people who wouldnt do it anymore...
no wait, i cant change that law, id have to change the law that doesnt allow people under 18 to date 18+...im 16 and my boyfriends 21...and that stupid law is the reason we havent met yet

If it were up to me, I would make all abortions illegal. All humans conceived should have the unlimited right to live.

No more abortions of any kind.

raise the speed limit

abortion.. and the death penalty.. both should be illegal

I'd lower the drinking age to 16. And abortion is a necessary tool for some women.

I will somehow change the statutory rape laws as they are written today. My son, who is 18 fell in love (big time) with a 14 year-old "victim". He was a virgin at the time, as was she. They both wanted a relationship. Now my son is facing 20 years in prison, she wants to kill herself if he won't see her anymore and this is a no win situation. My son would rather go to jail than to break up with her. He's only 4 years older and girls mature faster, so I feel that this law SUCKS!!! If anyone can help please let me know....kcdemers@hotmail.com.

How did he get the attention of the law in the first place? Her parents? School?
The ACLU used to be big on this issue, but they don't seem to have the influence, activity, and concerns they once had. But I don't know that for sure. It just seems they aren't out to rewrite society anymore. Perhaps they do it secretly by concentrating on some specifics.

I would have the Clean Air Act apply to every city in the USA. That's the one where you can't smoke inside a buliding.

Ban single sex education.

Gasp! you mean stop teaching them to masturbate?

The concealed handgun law in Mary Sucks and allows the criminal obviously in this state to run things and put fear in the common man and woman. Actually some laws are in place to allow women there genetic right to carry a big stick. When I lived in Texas I was allowed to conceal a hand gun. My liceanse is still in good standing but the so called free state doesnt treat it's people so free. The biggest go figure I see wrong with this law now here in Maryland is the fact that Maryland still with this law in place actually is on the top of the homicide count-- top 5 list and hasnt shown any impovement in fact they pass there count each year I was here (2) and if the count goes down at all it's 1-2 people (beleave me I watch the stats closely,see for your self at a website neer you> That stat about Maryland doesnt even include Washington, and you know that adds a dog but more the reason and statistical butterfingering to say What? Dumbasses make mistakes with the fiqures but are dulling sharp with there words.

Did you know in this one small town in Arizona it is illegal to wear suspenders? I learned about this one watching Oz last night.

Lower legal age of sexual consent to 12

Ewwww!

eliminate age of consent laws, speed limits

legalise pussy

I would make abortion illegal. People call for a "woman's right to choose," well, she did choose. She chose to engage in premarital sex.

Not everyone who has an abortion is unmarried.

You know how self-righteous these Religious types are. They think they're alwasy right. They think all women who have abortions are sluts, that everyone who gets an STD isn't monogamous (oviously he never ehard of carriers who don't know they're infected), and all homosexual are promiscuous, pink-loving, limp-wrisyted lispers.

Oh, come on Biggles. Are you telling me that married women make up a significant percentage of those choosing abortion? Is this your argument?

It happens. It has happened. It will happen again. I don't think it's a large number, but it's far from negligble.

Give me a break. What is not negligible, 1%?

The funniest thing about "pro-choice" supporters is the very word "pro-choice." Here in my state, they outlawed partial birth abortions last week. I doubt it will stick, but why the big fuss from abortion activists. Do they have no bundaries? What is the difference from a woman looking at her baby for the first time and deciding to kill it on the spot. The only difference is a couple of minutes.

Also, what is the deal with old women fighting for abortions? Why would they even care?

I could the saem thing about pro-life people, and how so many of them are against programs that could help these unwanted children in life instead of just leaving them to their own devices. As comedian George Carlin once said about you people, "If you're a fetus you're fine, once you're born you're fudgeed!" You show too much compassion for a fetus, and almost NONE for the child! That my friends is hypocrisy.

BTW, many Pro-Choicers supported the late-Term, we just didn't care for the vauge wording that would've left room to overturn Roe v. Wade. Tell your Right Wing congressman to knock it off with the Ringers and maybe more of their more reasonable bills will get passed. STOP TACKING BULLCRAP ONTO GOOD IDEAS! IT MAKES YOU LOOK STUPID AND EVIL!

What kind of programs are you referring to that will help them later in life? Come on, we are now using abortion as another form of birth control. If people want to have sex, so be it, but at least be responsible? If they feel responsible enough to have sex then they should be responsible enough to obtain contraception on their own. Have we forgotten what contraception is?

As far as George Carlin, he is a moron. How can that be a true statment? Fetuses are killed/murdered legally every day. What a stupid statement!

Your statement about showing compassion for fetuses and not born children is also rediculous. What do you call compassion?... not wanting a fetus killed? Well, are you saying we want children killed? You must because you are defining compassion as not wanting the life killed.

Let me tell you something. All the "pro-choice" (there is that rediculous word again) people are doing is devalueing human life. I get scared to think how far this will go in the coming decades. It would not be that extreme to see it as just a stepping stone to killing unwanted born children. I can see the justification now. The kid's mother can't afford to rear the child and the child's life is horrible. This is not fair to the child. It would be better to terminate its life so it would not have to live in any more misery. This would be the decent thing to do.

There are scarier reasons you are apparently unaware of for making partial birth abortions illegal. Until they perfect cloning human stem-cells (blank programmed cellular matter that can become any tissue type found in the brains of fetuses), the primary source for stem cell extraction is from the head of a living fetus kept alive during the process by partial delivery. It is basically mankind becoming vampires - farming children to be consumed by the elderly to prolong the life-span of their organs instead. It doesn't take a holy book to realise that this is about the lowest mankind has fallen yet. The largest emerging multi-billion dollar industries depend so far on a steady source of aborted fetuses. Your adversary is a greed for money and immortality from those too ignorant to see they already have that through God.

Good post Kristal. I was not aware of that. Pretty scary. Nothing surprises me anymore.

As far as George Carlin, he is a moron. How can that be a true statment? Fetuses are killed/murdered legally every day. What a stupid statement!

*BUZZ* Wrong! He's absolutely correct. Pro-Lifers push for the birth of unwanted and unloved chidlren that will likely grow up to be the serial killers of tomorrow, yet they CUT money to education. It has been shown that education is the key. Crime is hgihest in areas where shcools are falling appart and text books are out of date. When you're a fetus you're fine, but once you're born you are fudgeed. The Reps don't care about until you reach military age!

Let me tell you something. All the "pro-choice" (there is that rediculous word again) people are doing is devalueing human life.

Again, totally wrong! Are you totally stupid? Do you even care what Is ay? Or am I jsut another commie-jerk-liberal to be ignroed to you? Choice is a ridiculous word to dictators. To zealots. To plain butt-holes. So-Called Pro-Lifers (people who support death sqauds, captial punishment, adn god knows what other god awful killing machiens) Devalue human life every day by pushing bills that will elad to further opression of homosexuals. By pushing bills that will supress an artists right to determine what type of cnavas he uses be it a wall or a CD or a piece of paper. You want to know what one of your Conservo heroes Ann Coulter once said? This is an actual quote now. "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that THEY can be killed too! Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors!" Who can argue with logic like that? Clearly there's nothing Liberal's want MORE than to ally themselves with fundementalist zealots who oppose EVERYTHING WE STAND FOR! Uh-huh. She's just like Falwell, blaming 9/11 on Wiccans, and Gays, and Civil Libertarians. And just like you, to call anyone who disagrees with you a moron, and not offer any proof. What proof do you ahev that Carlin is lying? I have proof that he isn't. Under Daddy Bush there were numerous attmepts to cut head Start programs from schools. Menaing, the Republicans don't want smart children to start getting an education at an ealry age. Why do you think they consistently put jelly brains on their Presidential tickets? Intelligence is a threat to poeple like you and them.

End rant.

Just one thing Brian, would it have mattered to you if your parents had aborted you? I've rather enjoyed your company here.

Oh, excuse me Brian for not becoming "pro-life," pro-gay, etc, after reading your very flimsy arguments. You have based your entire argument on George Carlin, outdated books, and Ann Coulter.

Don't lose your temper. If I am not mistaken you are accusing me of ignoring you at the same time doing the same to me. Calling me stupid and a moron while at the same time getting angry when I imply such of you.

Brian, the only thing you have proved is how stupid you are. Amazing you think that the children aborted would have grown up to be serial killers. I tell you what, that is a mighty large number of would-be serial killers. Man, I am so glad that they were killed before they killed me! I guess it would be a strain on your intellect to go deeper and realise that maybe the need for abortions is a problem in and of itself.

As far as education as "the key" to solving crime-ridden areas, one would have to be naive to believe that is the core answer. It is important, but it is much deeper than that. You have kids excel in schools that have kids that are nothing more than thugs. My wife is a teacher by the way.

Let me tell you something Brian. You are definitely a liberal but you are also a hypocrite and a jerk. Is it not the liberals who oppose stereotyping individuals? I guess all Republicans would have been aborted if it was up to you.

Yes, Brian, after reading your post I do not think that you are "just another commie-jerk-liberal." I think you are also a moron.

I think you'll find that wasn't what I said. Don't put words in my mouth.

Bloody hell! What kind of right-wing gutter newspaper have you been reading to think that about stem cells??!!

I wrote, "I would make abortion illegal. People call for a "woman's right to choose," well, she did choose. She chose to engage in premarital sex."

Biggles, here was your response ... "Not everyone who has an abortion is unmarried"

My response... "Oh, come on Biggles. Are you telling me that married women make up a significant percentage of those choosing abortion? Is this your argument?"

Now your response... "I think you'll find that wasn't what I said. Don't put words in my mouth."

Well, it seems your argument is that abortion is not just for unmarried pregnant women. I say the percent having abortion that are married is negligable.

I am not sure where I stand on statutory rape laws. I think the penalty harsh for instances such as your son's. I do find it crazy that she is having sex at 14 regardless how mature you think she is.

You used "she" to refer to a woman having an abortion. So "She" in your statement could have referred to a married or unmarried woman.

And quite a lot of married women have abortions. I don't have the exact statistics floating around in my head - but it's higher than a percentage I would call negligible. Of course, the figures I have seen probably refer to abortions in the UK only......

I would think it negligible here in the US. I just think it horrible that abortion has now become a means of birth control.

That is horrid I know of people who don't bother to use contaception because they can always have an abortion if they get pregnant. But I don't think that people who do try to use contaception and have it fail on them, or have the condom split or whatever should be forced to have a child that they don't want.

First, I don't agree with you. Second, do you have a timetable when a woman can make up her mind to have an abortion? Is it at 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 20 weeks, or the whole time it is still in her body that she can have an abortion.

Television debates. Am I wrong about the source, the importance, the motives or ethics??? As far as I know there are only two locations they can be found. and cloning them is quite recent though they've been at least experimenting with them for many years now. Please explain what you know to be different. I was also told by a hospital worker that everyone who croaks , especially infants, automatically goes into harvesting while they look for reasons not to. They even pay you $50 if you've birthed a mutant. Are you telling me the entire stem-cell extraction debate is a crock, and they've been using poppy seed germ instead?

I'm just going to filter you now. I don't need anymore of this so-called Pro-lIfe bullcrap. I come here to have fun, not to argue with the self-righteous zealots. Accuse me of hiding if you wish. You can say I'm hiding all you want, but I know better, my loved ones will know better, and that's enough for me.

The cynical/wacko/insightful sci-fi author Philip K Dick wrote a story in which society decided that the soul appeared when a person could use pure abstract reason, as domonstrated by using calculus, and set at the age of 12 to be on the safe side. The story centered on a dad (who didn't know calculus)and his 11 year old son (who did) running away together from mom who recently decided to have her son aborted. I believe telepathic bonding with children is happening from the moment of conception. I could be wrong though, and stay away from putting my hands in that decision for others, in spite of my personal beliefs. One could argue that children are predestined even before their physical conception, and that birth control is interfering with their God intended life. I don't believe that though. Cockroaches eat their fleet of microscavenger offspring when times get tough, and are immensely successful at survival. You have to look at them as a collective entity though, not as individuals. Even the notion of a vampiristic human culture has a soul parallel, not just with reincarnation, but with many contemporary island cultures and ancient african and asian cultures suggesting that souls are passed from grandparents to grandchildren, or that the collective ancestral spirit remains here to guide the corporal realm. I'm sure the first heart transplant, the first wound stitching, fire, and even moving the plants to where we wanted them to grow, at one time seemed like usurping God's authority. Seen like this, I believe God will be there for us even if society evolves into a single modular electronic nano-matter planet creature with robotic flesh components. Christianity, as much as it preaches agoinst it, in practical terms is highly hooked into the notion of independent egos. We forget that even using the word 'I' in subjective literature didn't exist till the late 4th century. In my mystical realm, we are all one being, multi-faceted extensions of a single god. I am one with the baby crying in the supermarket, pharoahs and lamas, murderers and saints. The collective well-being of perception and formation of creation is paramount.
¥"Jack has an 8lb. 5 oz reason for listening to KFI" (I indicate my radio channeling of the logos with the '¥' glyph). The home birth of my daughter was the most magical thing in my life prior to my spiritual awakening.

You are hopeless, Brian.

I think a woman should be able to have an abortion as long as the foetus isn't viable or would have a very poor quality of life.

How do you define "poor quality of lie?" Would financial reasons be food enough?

No, I'm talking about extreme disability. I do think that severe financial problems are a good enough reason before the foetus is viable though.

I've just written you a long reply then had my computer crash - forgive me if this is a little more brusque than I intended.

You're wrong about the method - completely and utterly wrong.

There is nothing about the foetus that could possibly be called a head. The time between fertilisation and the extraction of the stem cells is, at most, 5 days. There's only going to be a blastocyst (a hollow sphere of less than 250 cells). The stem cells are taken from the inner part of the blastocyst. At 5 days, the blastocyst would not have even implanted in the lining of the womb. I don't believe that a womb is ever used when obtaining stem cells so how there could be any kind of "partial delivery" I don't know!

It's possible to get stem cells from a variety of sources - embryos, umbilical cords (of healthy, living, wanted babies) and adults. The main reason that stem cells are considered so beneficial is that they can develop into a variety of different cells. Unfortunately, adult stem cells are unipotent - they can only develop into certain types of cell (like bone cells). Embryonic stem cells on the other hand are pluripotent. Given the right conditions, scientists can theoretically make them develop into any kind of human cell.

Just imagine the benefits that can have. This isn't just about giving old people longer lives (though the technology could well do that). Stem cells can save thousands (probably many more than that) of young lives and improve the quality of life of thousands of other people.

Stem cells could have a huge role to play in curing diabetes (yes, that's curing, not just treating). Countless insulin dependent diabetics could have stem cell therapy to replace their damaged insulin producing cells and never have to inject themselves again. There's a high chance that stem cells could be used to help people with a huge variety of autoimmune diseases, such as lupus - and believe me, autoimmune diseases can be very nasty. Not to mention the possibility of growing whole organs for transplants - no waiting for someone to die who matches your requirements and is an organ donor.

All this at the expense of a ball of cells. And that is all they are. The whole point of stem cells is that they are undifferentiated. They cells in the blastocyst may have the potential to one day be cheek cells or red blood cells, but at the point when they are extracted - they aren't.

I think you need to find some better tv debates to watch!

Oh, and if you're interested, this is a reasonable website - I don't think it says much about how the cells are extracted, but it does talk a lot about the uses of stem cells.

http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/scireport.htm

How do you define "viable?"

If it's able to survive outside of the womb.

I agree. Just like a lot of pro-choice people do. Just don't tell Ray that. He'll just accuse me of 'devalueing human life' again.

I imagine he can see what you're saying

Yeah, but I filtered him so I can't see him seeing me.

That's what little children do! "If I cover my eyes, then no-one can see me....."

But I suppose it avoids the arguments!

Ok, I'll put some weight on what you've said here unless I find otherwise.
Here are a couple sites. The term 'extraction' doesn't seem to be used as much lately, since i guess IVF dicards are becoming a source rather than pluripotent cells found in fetal gonads (which anatomical foundations pay $550 for) (and brains, i believe). A lot has changed in the last half dozen years when partial live delivery was becoming popular. They are making progress in undifferentiating adult multipotent cels and cloning cells, it seems.
http://www.nrlc.org/Baby_Parts/wills.html
http://www.dadi.org/whatissc.htm
There's very little in war coverage about people being maimed or killed. The news is about politics, economics, urban redevelopment, or technology. The decision to keep blood and guts out of war coverage happened during vietnam. I doubt it's very different in stem-cell research. The industry requires clinical objectivity, which could be lost if manipulating this stuff was perceived as something more human than programming matter. I believe clinton's moratorium on human cloning was a move to wait till public opinion accepted it, and remove public debate while fresh students were fed the mechanical aspects in text books. The moratorium didn't stop NIH from cloning every sort of human neural or sensory tissue in the meantime.

What do you think of people that have to be hooked up to respirators or other equipment to live? What if the equipment is only necessary for a short time? Are these people "viable?" Should they also die?

Is a infant truly viable, or even a child for that matter? Aren't they dependent on others to survive?

Also, as far as Brian goes, you cannot talk with him without him getting angry, going on the attack, and calling names.

He also defined me as being "compassionate" towards the unborn (I guess because I think they should live) but having no compassion towards children (who, I also want to live.) I still haven't heard what his definition of compassion is. As far as fetuses, I guess compassion is wanting them to live. Well, I want children to live too but somehow he says I have no compassion for kids. I love kids. My wife and I are due in seven weeks and I love the child now and will also love the child after she is born.

I think that people who are hooked up to ventilators are actually *people* (whereas I don't think that foetuses under a certain age are) so they can make their own decisions. All they need is a do not resuscitate order or to have informed their next of kin about what they want.

As far as Brian goes, I can and do talk to him without him getting angry, going on the attack and calling names - you just have to know how to handle certain people.

I like you because just because we disagree you don't get on the defensive, attack, and call names. I am also not trying to be difficult, I am trying to understand others' opinions.

So you are saying you believe that abortion is okay until the fetus becomes a person. A fetus becomes a person when it is viable. Viable, I assume, is when the baby can live outside of the mother's womb. I believe a fetus can live outside a mother's womb at about the beginning of the third trimester (approx 30 weeks.) Therefore, you think abortion is acceptable up until 30 weeks. Does this about sum it up?

You know that a fetus at just twenty weeks have their entire body formed and often are sucking their thumbs. Even eyebrows are formed. Our ultrasound at 19 weeks, showed our baby sucking her thumb. We know it was a girl, not just because we didn't see a penis, but because you could see her genitalia.

Yep. Being nice is a good way to get on my good side. Being funny gets you there even faster.

Trying to understand other people's points of view is all we can ever do I find it easier to understand the anti-abortion stance than I do a lot of other things I disgree with. Because to me, it is almost wrong - certainly I disagree with it when a foetus is older, but I think there is a point before I consider it human. I'm not sure where exactly I'd draw the line, but I certainly would have no qualms about aborting a blastocyst using an IUD (coil).

That's exactly what I meant by viable. Modern medicine is moving that age back further and further. I'm not certain that I would say a foetus wasn't a person until it was viable - as you say it is very developed long before then. But I think that between 20 and 28 weeks (I think 28 weeks is the cut-off point in the UK, unless the foetus is certain to die or the mother's lie is being threatened) an abortion is acceptable.

Note I say acceptable, not desirable. I don't think abortion is a good thing and I hate the thought that it is used by people who simply can't be bothered to use contaception. But I do accept that things go wrong, contraception fails, people can be ignorant, rape happens.

A foetus at 20 weeks is an incredible thing. I think if I was pregnant - even if I didn't want it - I couldn't have an abortion at that stage. But I think there are circumstances where it is the best thing overall - I don't think that anyone but the mother really has the right to say when that is (although the government should really put limits on when abortions can take place).

Abortion just isn't a black and white issue is it? I mean, unless you don't recognise other points of view! It all goes back to when you think human life starts and what you believe about the human soul. Would you permit the abortion of a blastocyst (the hollow sphere of about 200 cells that forms shortly after fertilisation and contains nothing but undifferentiated cells)?

Maybe I should get RayB to tell you a joke then

I just don't know, Biggles. I can see where in the first couple weeks MAYBE someone could justify it. I don't know. I just don't like it plain and simple. I mean, who are we to determine? You have sex, you get pregnant, you have a baby. That is the way it goes. If you don't want to get pregnant, then don't get pregnant.

We had the first ultrasound at eight weeks. The machine showed a perfect skull facing us. By the image it looked just like what you would think an image of our skull would look like. This was at only eight weeks. I don't know if you have ever seen the show "Tales of the Crypt" that used to come on HBO but it looked just like that guy. We have a picture of it as well as a pic from the second ultrasound showing our baby from the waist up with every feature formed sucking her thumb. You can see her lips, little nose, eyelids, etc.

I will say this. In all honesty, if my wife got raped I know I would be tempted to go against my convictions on the subject. It would be such an easy way out and the option would be there for us.

Lastly, I will never understand people actively lobbying for abortion. I mean, why would they spend so much time and heartache pushing abortion. What are they getting out of it? Why such the juge fight? Why do they care? Why would a 60 year old lady care? I can see pro-lifers doing it because most of them feel it is murder. I mean, if we were going to legalize murder I think most of us would fight against it.

It isn't always possible to avoid getting pregnant. I mean, there is rape - I know that's a special situation, but it does happen.

Secondly, why shouldn't people have sex without getting lumbered with children? Within marriage, outside of marriage - whichever. Contaception isn't perfect and it doesn't always prevent pregnancy.

I think people lobby for abortion because they believe in the right to choose whether you go through with a pregnancy. "Pro-choicers" have just as many convictions as "pro-lifers" - you don't have to be directly linked to something to believe it is right or wrong. The UK doesn't have the death penalty - but I'm still against capital punishment in America and the rest of the world.

I just don't see someone going to such extremes to keep abortion legal. I don't see how making abortion illegal can attack at one's moral fiber. Seems like their are more important things to fight about than making sure people can kill their unwanted fetus. Regardless of what you say, a majority of abortions occur because of irresponsible behavior. Our world has become too "loose." Where is our path leading? Have you ever heard of the resort Hedonism in Jamaica? Well, look it up. Everyone will be living like that before long.

Also, I just wanted to let you know that I do not agree with the pro-lifers that go to extremes at their demonstrations at the abortion clinics. I don't like demonstrations at all.

Have you read about the situation in Ireland? (Eire, not Northern Ireland).

no

I would lower the age of majority to 13.

The right to abortion........it should be illegal to murder an unborn and innocent human being.

WORD UP!
For those of you who call people with a moral conscience- self-righteous.......the news is those who believe that abortion is right and that every woman has the right to abortion, they are the ones who are SELF-RIGHTEOUS AND SELD-CENTERED. Plainly SELFISH!
Yes, the Word of God gives us a clear and understandable statement of God's consideration of the unborn child to be a human being subject to the protections of his righteous law. God recognizes a person even before he or she is born. "Before I was born the Lord called me" (Isaiah 49:1). Exodus 21:22-23 describes a situation in which a man hits a pregnant woman and causes her to give birth prematurely. If there is "no serious injury," the man is required to pay a fine, but if there is "serious injury," either to the mother or the child, then the man is guilty of murder and subject to the penalty of death. This command, in itself, legitimizes the humanity of the unborn child, and places the child on a level equal that of the adult male who caused the miscarriage. Scriptural support abounds for the humanity of the unborn child. "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 eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Ps 139: 13-16). The command "Thou Shall not Murder" (Exodus 20:13) certainly applies to the unborn as well as the already born. Thus, when we read Genesis 9:6, the full realization of what it means to murder comes in to focus, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." Murder is an abomination in the sight of God because it is the unauthorized killing of a being made in His own image, and a blurring of the creator/creature distinction- Romans 1.
Mother Teresa, perhaps one of the world's most renown champions of the underprivileged said, "If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill each other? ... Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want." Also, the logical result of the desire for "abortion-on-demand" is infanticide and euthanasia -- killing a newborn if it possesses physical or mental anomalies, and killing those for whom the living find it inconvenient to care. When human life is cheapened to the point that even the womb, a symbol of tranquility and peace, becomes a place of death; even the already-born will begin to respect each others' lives a little less.

It's really sad to see this great country of ours so BLIND to their own SIN. God loves us so much He gave us His WORD through the prophets and His apostles........it tells us how to live and gives us warning about SIN and its consequence. There is nothing self-righteous about that. Mercy! You all should have mercy! Those who show mercy will be shown mercy!

Is there any place else you would like to 'cut and paste' this sermon? As a comment (personal opinion) it was fine material, but the cut and paste changes the nature of what you're doing here. You are not 'alive in the presence' when you are engaged in 'telling people'.

Religious zealots ARE self-righteous because they believe that some book written by four chauvenistic white guys over 2000 years is a viable 'rule book' for modern living. Your comment suggests you beleive tyhat all pro-choicers are immoral. This is what my grandmother would call, bullcrap.

Abortion is the ethics of a modern day holocaust. It has been said that those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. And once again, innocent lives are the sacrifice that it demands. Untold millions of children have been classified as "subhuman," and sentenced to die horrible deaths that surpass even the most brutal methods of destruction. Indeed, it would seem that Auschwitz and the other death camps were never really closed at all, but were merely transferred to the womb and labelled as "safe and legal abortion." In a society of supposed "civilized" people, as Americans no doubt would like to view themselves, this atrocity cannot be tolerated. The Business is Killing, and Business is Good. Distress by unwanted pregnancy is to be the primary consideration, ahead of any possible consideration for the fetus. You have to become a bit schizophrenic, in one room they encourage the patient that the slight irregularity of the fetal heart is not important -- that she is going to have a fine healthy baby. Then in the next room you assure another women, on whom you just did a saline abortion, that it's good that the heart is already irregular.... She has nothing to worry about, she is NOT going to have a live baby. If you tell a big enough lie enough times, people will eventually begin to believe it. Women and men who chose to ignore the accusations of their own consciences and to permit what they instinctively knew to be wholesale murder, the professional doctors call them animals.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This statement comes from the Declaration of Independence. Abortion should be illegal.

I stand firm on this. All other replies take note.

The retort to BrianW was much much better, though now you're quoting yet another document. Your quote still assumes that the unborn are men. If the general public believed that, there wouldn't be much of an abortion issue, because they are against murder. If you were simply to avoid the topic of abortion altogether, and spread convincing evidence that the unborn have consciousness, you would achieve much more in this culture.

I would agree with some of that. I supported the late term ban (except in cases of incest or when the mother's life is at risk). But early on in the pregnancy, the fetus has more in common with a goiter than with a human. Certainly I'm opposed to abortion at the point where the child could survive independently outside the womb. But your type (not neccesarily you, for you haven't said anythign about what I'm going to bring up) seem to think that masturbation, brith control, and the morning-after pill are the SAME as an abortion. The excuse is, it prevents life. Well, so does not having sex. Does that make abstinence a crim in the eyes of 'God?' I am pro-Choice. Maybe not as ardent as most, but still pro-choice nonetheless. All other replies take note.

Human life has not changed since God created it. Only human manipulation of human life has changed.

I believe human life begins with the union of a sperm and an egg, which is the "moment of conception" or fertilization. One could say that the sperm and ovum, before their union, constitute a potential human being. Once their union is completed, however, they have become an actual human being. I wouldn't think that abstinence is a crime in the eyes of God. Masturbation is, and has been a world view a necessary form of sexual release.
The only harm coming from masturbation is a guilt feeling, caused by the attitude of parents and, ill informed preachers on the subject of solo-sex.

Honest guilt feelings about masturbation will occur, and should be accepted if fantasizing about adultery or fornication, during the self-sex act. God still inspect his human temples for idols, fornication, whores, the misuse of money, and unclean sacrifices, but not for masturbation.

Semen is normal human waste, waiting to exit the human body or temple, just as spitting, defecating, urinating ,and sweating.

Jesus entered the temple in Jerusalem Temple 2000 years ago, aware of the sins that would damn mans soul, masturbation isn't one of them.

The Pill allows sexual spontaneity, but those pills that control ovulation do not allow sperm and egg to meet. That is not a crime.
U486 and various other "morning after" pills. These also induce an abortion at the earliest stages of life when there is union between sperm and egg. That is an execution of a life.
RU486: works by blocking the production of the hormone progesterone, rendering the uterus inhospitable to the fertilized egg, but if there is a union between the two then this procedure requires three visits to the abortionist, surgical abortion as a backup for failure of this method of birth control.

The Morning After Pill, is an Emergency Contraception it is a mega dose of the hormone progesterone. It makes the lining uterus inhospitable to the fertilized egg. It is usually used in cases of rape or an unplanned sexual relationship within 72 hours after sexual contact.

Let's not overlook the heart of the matter...God looks in our hearts and knows what is the intention of our hearts...that is what causes it to be murder and not.

Abortion to Save the Life of the Mother? (QUESTION: Mandy, What is your argument for making this exception? Is the argument consistent with your analysis of when it is permissible to take a life?)Maybe say a tubal pregnancy. If no action is taken, and the tubal pregnancy is allowed to progress, there is a genuine possibility that both mother and child would perish as a result of bleeding from a ruptured Fallopian tube. Given the existing capabilities of medical technology, and lacking an artificial womb, there is no possibility of saving the embryonic human life developing in the Fallopian tube. Surgical removal of the embryonic human being, in order to save life having a prospect of survival (the mother's), is analogous to the action of the physician at the train wreck who physically moves aside a victim in a hopeless situation in order to treat the victim with some prospect of survival. It would then be possible to save both mother and child, and the tragic dilemma would cease to arise. At present, however, the choice is between saving one life or saving none.


All other replies take note.

Well, while I admire you for not resorting to sterotypical ranting, raving, and rhetoric, I have to point out that not everyone on either side is religious. I know some religious people who are pro-choice, and vice versa.

But one thing most people on both sides don't want to admit they agree on is that using abortion as just a method of brith control is absolutely wrong. I defy anyone to name a pro-choicers who publicly thinks otherwise.

I feel the best birth control one could possibly decide on is self-control or abstinence. I find it disturbing that most people don't think about the consequences of the choices they make. Some womens choices are made out of desperation, fear, shame, or ignorance, etc. Abortion used as method of birth control is morally wrong. I have already stated as above why I feel this way.

'abstinence a sin', oh that's a riot I'll have to remember.

If God doesn't condemn masturbation, then why did he kill Onan for "spilling his seed"? Genesis 38:8-10. That's the standard prooftext for why masturbation is wrong.

I would agree, but baring that, condoms, the morning-after pill et al are FAR preferrable to abortion. Frnakly, anyone so emotionally closed off that they don't regret an abortion even a teensy bit shouldn't be allowed to have children period.

Women care about reproductive rights because our bodies belong to us.
My uterus is mine. It does not belong to a man. It does not belong to a politician.

But, I would not have an abortion. That is MY choice. I do not like abortion, but in some cases I think it is the most compassionate solution.
When one in three women have not been sexually assaulted and women have the same financial opportunities as men, then maybe I would consider pro-life a practical idealology.

Illegal drugs. Legalize!

blah blah blah

Wow, great rebuttal.

The government gives money to people who don't work even though they are capable. These people have nothing better to do than make more people who will never work, while the working class is too busy working to even have children.

If there is a law behind that, I would like it to go away.

Talk about misinterpreting a good story. Onan Disobeyed God. It wasn't the act, but the motive. Our "sins" lie solely in our motivations, our lusts.
Your Jesus says "If you so much as look at another man's wife with INTENTION to lust after her you have already committed adultery with her IN YOUR HEART"

If you are going to quote your "bible" you should not only know what it says but what it MEANS.

Lrurid Are you taing about ending unmployment eneifts? i so go uck yourself you jiz-mopper! I've already been screwed out of the much neeed money once before! And Iwas able bodied and lookign fo a job. IT'S NOT THE FUDGING EAS! It tok me NIN FUCING MOTNHS to get the job I got. 9 months! Accordig to you howevr I was just lazy and shouldn't have gotten the help I need to survive. AndBTW, there are more omportant thing sin life thn just 'makin babies' for the state to rais ad kil at a momnts notice, either by sub-par eduacion tssing them into a battle zoen while still nexperiencd, or executing themi a Texas lethal injection chamber.

we live in a different age now. how much current occupations existed a century ago? everyone working came from a time when it took most of our resources to create our food, clothing, and shelter. now that that's automated , you'd think we could have a civilisation dedicated to prayer, arts, and such, with people doing just a bit of work, instead of a few doing real work, most paid for thumb-twiddling jobs, and others paid a bit to not twiddle their thumbs so that relative privelage could be handed to others. There are more entire colleges teaching computer programming than their are individual jobs being offered. It's time for people to see that a new society needs created that values community in a post-industrial age. The spiritual motives underlying work ethics need to surfaced as the particular outward behaviors become obsoleted, otherwise we will lose the underlying motives. Imagine if Jesus was too busy to teach because he had to exhaust himself all day reading telemarketing scripts for credit card companies.

That is certainly not my own interpretation, but it is the interpretation of, among other biblical literalists, the Catholic Church. Why do you think masturbation is called onanism? If someone wants to condemn certain behaviors because the Bible supposedly prohibits them, then one should at least be consistent in one's over-literalism.

The problem with saying that you should know what the Bible means is that it means different things to different people. It's got to be the most widely and variously interpreted book of all time. So what it means to me (that it's a cultural artifact) is pretty much irrelevant.

And he's not my Jesus, either.

(Which is to say, you and I know that the story's about disobedience, but we hold only one opinion on the matter!)

I'm specifically talking about woman, with live in boy friends making tons of untaxed dollars by illegal means and having children every 9 months.
You were very rude to me. This offends me deeply. I was merely sharing my opinion. Please, when explanations are necessary or questions arise due to something I may say, Please just ask.

Please withhold such comments directed at me in the future. I collected a supplemental for some time and I am the first to say that once you are receiving benefits it is HARDER to get back into the world again. The system should encourage those in need to get back on their feet again.

Unemployment is a totally different from the state welfare programs that keep so many unemployed mothers satiated, indoors, and in stores.

That is all I meant.

Go in Peace.

Well I was just responmding to what LOOKED like a slight. I mena, all these Right Wing anti-welfare types say "Jut get a job!" as if it's the easiest thing in the world

I would decriminilize pot, but that seems like a waste of this oportunity.

In that case, I cant think of anything.

(06-25-02)

I would create a wealth tax.

Salary caps for Hollywood.

Age of consent laws

#5 Raise them or lower them?