From pro-abortion to pro-life: My thoughts on the 34th anniversay of Roe v. Wade

Posted by: ST on January 22, 2007 at 10:13 pm

First, I’d like to say that I hate that the anniversary of this decison, which gave women the ‘right’ to terminate their pregnancy(ies), is on my birthday.

Second, abortion is an issue I find hard to talk about – not because I’m afraid to talk about it (I got over that long ago) but because it is an incredibly painful issue for me to discuss. Not that I’m alone in that; I’m sure it’s tough for a lot of people, mainly male and female pro-lifers, to discuss because of the moral issues, the visual images we’ve all seen of aborted babies, and the deep emotional commitment pro-lifers have towards saving the lives of the unborn. The pain for me is that, but also the knowledge that as a young woman finding my way in life, I once advocated the ‘continued right’ for pregnant women to abort their unborn babies. There are fiercely strong elements of both guilt and shame inside me over my old beliefs about abortion, so strong that I can’t write or talk about the issue without being overcome with emotion. I simply cannot forgive myself that I, in my own small way, contributed to the culture of death at one point in my life. It is something I continue to have to work through, not just as a Christian, but as a human being, because you don’t have to be a Christian to understand that abortion is morally reprehensible.

On the other hand, having been on the ‘other side’ of the issue at one time helps me, I think, in being able to give a more understandable and (hopefully) believable insight into the mind of someone who is (in my case once was) pro-abortion, but before I get started, I’d like to acknowledge that I realize that reasonable people can disagree on this issue, but the people I most often debate the issue with are those who are militant and unreasonable, and who make easily debunkable arguments, which I’ll explain in depth below.

The word “abortion” alone speaks volumes about the procedure, and you can best believe that over the years pro-abortion forces in groups such as NARAL and NOW have sought to reframe the debate by preferring to use Photo courtesy of Kurt Rogers/SF Chronicle the term “pro-choice” more and more rather than “pro-abortion” (Example 1 and Example 2). There is a reason for this, which is evident when you analyze the word “abortion” itself. The word “abort” means to “stop” or “terminate” something and in the case of “abortion” what exactly are we “stopping” or ‘terminating”? Pro-abortionists don’t want you to consider this aspect of the argument because they’d have to admit that you were “stopping” or “terminating” the very maturation of a little life – a human life – where we all began. Thus the attempt at reframing the debate by claiming they are ‘pro-choice’ (or ‘pro reproductive freedom’) rather than ‘pro-abortion.’ They want you to believe it’s not about a ‘aborting a life’ but instead ‘making a choice.’ Right.

The attempt at reshaping the debate by using less inflammatory words is a common tactic of the pro-abortion crowd. Oftentimes when debating abortion I’ll come across a staunch abortion advocate who will insist that it’s not a baby in a pregnant woman’s womb but a “blob of tissue” or “parasite” or “leech.” I wrote this last October regarding the changing of terms we use when discussing unborn babies or humans in a PVS, and I think it’s worth repeating today:

Viewing unborn children as a parasites is very similar to viewing patients in a persistent vegetative state as a vegetables. It’s a way to take the human aspect of the issue out of the equation. When you don’t view something as a human, it’s easier to justify your support of taking its life. Dr. Yacov Tabak, who helped provide the best care for his wife Marsi, who was diagnosed as being in a PVS in 1997, explains:

Dr. Tabak couldn’t bear the term “vegetable” when it was first presented to him, and since the Terri Schiavo ruling, says that some in the medical community have shown an ulterior, ugly side regarding this appellation. “There is a medical agenda with this term” Dr. Tabak contends. “It’s very difficult to get emotionally involved with a vegetable. To have a relationship with a carrot goes against human nature.

And to have a relationship with a ‘parasite’ goes against human nature, too. Viewing an unborn child as a mere pesky parasite makes it sound, to pro-abortionists, so much more ‘justifiable’ to terminate.

There are conflicting studies out there which show on one hand that ‘most’ women who have abortions are not emotionally scarred by it and feel relieved once it’s done, while others show that having an abortion scars a woman for life, some more so than others. The truth is somewhere in between, but make no mistake about it, the decision to have an abortion is not one that most women make in a snap. They think about it and agonize over it, and there’s a reason they agonize over it: because deep inside, they know it’s wrong. Last October, I blogged about a hospital in the UK that was discovered to have thrown aborted babies into the same incinerator they used to get rid of trash, which outraged not only pro-life groups, but some of the women who had abortions there, who thought it was a horrible way for their baby to be dispensed with, which tells you about how torn women who have abortions are between doing what’s right (keeping the child) versus doing what is convenient (aborting them) and the guilt which eats at them later. Women are reassured prior to the abortion that their unborn child will be buried or dispensed of ‘with dignity’ but why worry about the dignity of the child when you didn’t want it to begin with? If you’ve made the choice to abort your child, you have little room to complain when you find out how it’s been disposed of, but all the same the thought that women could be horrified to find out something like that happened to their unborn baby after they aborted it shows that they know deep down that what they did was wrong to begin with.

The hypocrisy involved in pro-abortion arguments is so obvious that it amazes me that pro-abortionists can make them with a straight face, but make them they do and they’ve gotten away with it for years. For example, you frequently hear and read pro-abortionists exclaim “the government has no business in my sex life” yet these same people advocate that the government does get involved in your sex life, especially if you’re poor and don’t have the money to get an abortion. Then they’re ok with the government getting involved in your sex life – specifically involved in your choosing to terminate the result of your irresponsible sexual behavior via a state-funded abortion. Never ever let a pro-abortionist convince you that they don’t want the government involved in your sex life – they most certainly do. If they didn’t want government involved in your sex life, then they wouldn’t support continued state-funded abortions, and they wouldn’t advocate government-approved sex education in the public school system. When pro-abortionists say they don’t want the government involved in your sex life, what they’re really saying is they don’t want the government telling you that if you choose to be sexually irresponsible with your body, that there can be serious consequences for your behavior. What they want the government to do is to essentially condone your behavior by paying for your abortion, or paying for your child to be able to eat and have a roof over his head.

Another hypocritical position pro-abortionists take is the one where they claim to promote ‘responsible sexual behavior’ which would be laughable if the issue itself wasn’t so serious. How on earth can you claim to promote ‘responsible sexual behavior’ when you encourage women to feel free to engage in sex with whoever whenever? Whether they are protected from disease and pregnancy or not, it is not – I repeat – not responsible to routinely engage in casual sex, whether you are a man or a woman. Respect for your body comes not in seeing how many people you can share it with, but saving it for the person with whom you intend to share your life. That is the real way to engage in ‘responsible sexual behavior’, not giving in to your every sexual urge with everyone you’re attracted to. Not only that, but with each new partner, you increase your chances of getting an STD, and/or either getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant, and as a result may have to rely on the government to either pay for your abortion, your child, and/or your healthcare. How is that ‘responsible’? You simply do not promote sexual responsibility by giving the green light to engage in frequent casual sex. Taking disease and pregnancy out of the equation does not make frequent casual sex any more responsible. Furthermore, pro-abortionists in feminist groups like NARAL and NOW betray their ‘responsiblity’ argument by routinely blaming the man for everything that happened. Check out some of these bumper stickers on the NOW website:

Against Abortion? Wear a Condom, Dude! $2.00

[...]

Against Abortion? Have a Vasectomy! $2.00

[...]

Not Every Sperm Needs a Name $2.00

These hypocrites also have the nerve to claim that they are pro-family! I don’t think I have to explain the absurdity of such an argument.

Also, you’ll find that most staunch pro-abortionists are the same people who will chain themselves to a tree in order to protect it or launch a campaign to ‘save the whales’ – it’s bizarre that they put more importance on life that is not human than life which is.

Photo of 10 week old baby courtesy of David Barlow/National Geographic's In the Womb seriesProbably the biggest logical fallacy involved in pro-abortion arguments is that the baby growing inside a woman’s body is supposedly not yet human because it couldn’t sustain life outside of the womb. I find it beyond comprehension that one pregnant woman’s 2 week old child is another woman’s 2 week old ‘blob of tissue.’ I find it even more incomprehensible that women who have had children can remain ‘pro-choice’, considering they’re not ignorant about when their son or daugther’s life started. It’s either a child or it’s not. In actuality, we really don’t get to decide: once that child is conceived that’s what it is: a child. Why there is a debate about this is beyond me, because every single one of us, whether on the pro-life side or pro-abortion side, started off as a ‘blob of tissue.’ Thank goodness that our mothers didn’t view at us the way pro-abortionists look at pregnancy today, eh? A question pro-abortionists are reluctant to answer is: “In retrospect, would you have been in favor of your mother aborting you or your brother or sister when you or they were just ‘blobs of tissue’ if she had wanted to?” It’s easy for them to be pro-abortion when they don’t have to consider the possibility that they or one of their beloved family members could have been aborted at their mother’s ‘choosing.’

President Reagan once famously said: “I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” Timely then, and timely now.

My hope is that anyone who reads this and who considers themselves pro-abortion will revisit and reconsider why they believe in the ‘right’ to abort a child. I know people can change their views on abortion: I certainly did, and I don’t regret it for a minute. There is a lot of hypocrisy and senselessness involved in pro-abortion arguments. I know, because I used to make them.

More: Let’s take a look at a typical method of abortion, known as the D&E abortion, as described by Planned Parenthood Golden Gate. This is what they describe as the ‘safest’ method of abortion and they perform them on unborn babies up to 18.6 weeks gestation (emphasis added):

You return to clinic on the day of your procedure. Before the procedure is started, a needle will be inserted in your vein and will stay there during the time you are in the clinic. Once the needle is in place, all the medications that you need will be given through it. These medications may include drugs to help you relax and reduce discomfort.

If used, the gauze and dilators will be removed. The doctor will give you a local anesthetic (numbing medicine) in your cervix, which will make the procedure more comfortable. The opening of the uterus may need to be stretched more, which will be done gradually with a series of narrow instruments called dilators, each a little larger than the one before. When the cervix is open wide enough, a plastic tube will be inserted into the uterus and is connected to a suction machine. The content of the uterus will then be removed by a combination of suction and instruments, usually taking 5-15 minutes. During and after the procedure, you may feel cramping as the uterus shrinks down to its normal size. The doctor then may do a final check with a spoon shaped instrument called a curette. Later, the doctor will examine the pregnancy tissue to check whether it has been removed completely.

Isn’t it sick the way they describe what’s in the uterus as the “contents” of the uterus or “pregnancy tissue”, rather than a fetus? This is what a fetus at 18 weeks gestation looks like (more here). Some “blob of tissue”!

Others blogging about this: La Shawn Barber, FRC VP of communications Charmaine Yoest, E.M. Zanotti, Mary Katharine Ham, Texas Rainmaker, Greg Tinti, Right Voices, Macranger

Tue AM Update: Michelle Malkin blogs about the way the media portrayed yesterday’s pro-life demonstrators versus pro-abortion demonstrators.

Prior/Related:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Leaning Straight Up trackbacked with Thoughts on the 34th anniversay of Roe v. Wade
  • 43 Responses to “From pro-abortion to pro-life: My thoughts on the 34th anniversay of Roe v. Wade”

    Comments

    1. Ron Goodwyne says:

      I wish it was possible for people to actually have real discussions about abortion instead of constantly talking past each other. Unfortunately, until abortion supporters acknowledge that indusputable fact that abortion ends a life, there is little chance of making progress with them.

      Happy birthday dear lady. You are a gem indeed!

    2. sanity says:

      Heard on the radio today:

      “ever notice on every animal show they sya he Elephant is pregnant with a BABY elephant, the lioness is pregnant with a BABY lion….ect.”

      Never do you hear, the elephant has a blob of tissue, or has a “fetus”.

      So animals can be prgnant with babies, just not humans.

    3. jeff says:

      What a telling and accurate post. It is so important that people are constantly exposed to descriptions and images such as are posted here.

      Finally, I want to personally thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in those who support this heinous procedure. It is disgusting that we–as a society–think that freedom to kill children is somehow a high point for women’s rights. Take, for example, this passage from a book required for my education class in a paragraph about the evolution of American society: “[Finally] there was the 20th century family planning movement which was key to women’s emancipation, greater opportunities for children and alleviation of poverty.”

      Later, she talks about how important “reproductive rights” are to maintaining a level of “environmental sustainability.” Two problems with these arguments: first, abortion certainly doesn’t provide greater opportunities for the children who were aborted. Secondly, “environmental sustainability” is not reason enough to justify the murder–or abortion–of any living being. I just don’t understand how the author of this book–a teacher by profession–can justify such positions.

      Sorry for the long windedness, but this just makes me so angry and disgusted that it’s difficult for me to know when to stop ranting about it…

    4. Robert says:

      The only way I could ever be convinced that abortion is a positive thing would be if there were some scientific way to predict with 100% accuracy that the baby would grow up to become a rabid liberal if it were allowed to continue.

      Sometimes I think that since Liberals love abortion so much, perhaps retroactive abortion of Liberals should be legalized?

    5. camojack says:

      First of all, happy birthday.
      (Belatedly)

      Secondly, don’t berate yourself for your former views; you’ve grown up, is all.

    6. Marshall Art says:

      I agree. There’s no point in anguishing over that which you have corrected and from which you have repented. You are “born again” in your current views and God bless you for that.

      May He also bless you on your birthday. What are ya, like 18 or 19 now, right?

      I also go nuts over how the abortionists attempt to reframe the issue and come up with softer words to lessen the guilt of their beliefs. That’s why I feel it’s important to always refer to them as pro-baby killers when debating them. When they try that “blob of tissue” crapola, try asking them for proof that it isn’t a child. Which embriology textbook are they using for reference? How could it be possible that the result of engaging in that activity which is by design for procreation be anything other than a new human being? Why is it less human just because it hasn’t reached a certain stage of development or because it hasn’t developed limbs or a sense of awareness or whatever false line of demarcation they choose to further this month? Where does science actually prove what they say as opposed to presenting pro-baby killing opinions of what the science says?

      I remember reading an interview with Gloria Steinem who said that she tried feeling guilty about her abortions but just couldn’t. Either she’s trying to convince herself or she’s truly one of the most contemptible pieces of crap in the world.

      Finally, and aren’t you glad? is the notion of “a right to choose”. They did so great with their right to get laid, didn’t they? And now they think they have the maturity to decide whether that life that they invited into existence throught their sexual activity is human or not? They need to be told by law that that is a human being .

    7. Great White Rat says:

      I’d like to add my voice to camojack and Marshall. It does you no good at all to beat yourself up over your old beliefs. You’ve seen the light, and that’s what’s important. No sense spending your life looking in the rear view mirror when you have so much good to accomplish on the road ahead of you!

    8. karl says:

      I not only concur with the others, I am reposting this brilliant essay on my site.

    9. karl says:

      I find that one picture, of the woman with the sloganized belly particularly stupid by the way.

    10. PCD says:

      Karl, I’ve seen Liberals do much worse and more stupidly.

    11. GM Roper says:

      Sis, my good friend and writing buddy from The Wide Awakes posted on this topic as well. My comment to him:

      I am in mourning for this ruling and all of the deaths that it has caused :((. However, it also is a solid reason for celebration for my darling daughter was born on this date, 1972 and stands forever as a shining light of what didn’t happen because her mom and I wanted an abortion. It would never have occurred to either of us to even consider that move, and as a result, I have a beautiful, charming, bright and oh-so-conservative daughter.
      She remains to this day, my light, my life, my beloved little girl, even if she is now 35.”

      :d

      Great post, keep it up and lives will be saved.

    12. Dennis says:

      ST:
      It breaks my heart to read your words: “…I simply cannot forgive myself…”.

      It breaks my heart because I know that a ton of Christian women constantly struggle with that guilt which is no longer theirs. You are forgiven, my Sister. It’s time for you to let it go. Jesus doesn’t want you to suffer any more, but wants you to live in His grace and forgiveness.

      I don’t write this lightly. I struggle with the same issue, but over a different topic. Daily I have to wake up and remind myself of the depths of His grace. Sometimes I forget. Your post helped me to remember.

      I can only pass on one more thing: Hang on to what you’ve learned, and continue to use this forum and any others you are given (I think you have great things in your future) to pass on what you’ve learned.

      You rock.

    13. Tom TB says:

      All of our lives began at conception, talk about an “inconvenient fact”. The problem with technology changing human society faster than we can adjust is exemplified by countries like China and India. Sonograms and abortions are easy; preferring male children over female is cultural, therefore the two most peopled countries end up with too many guys and too few dolls.

    14. Baklava says:

      ST wrote, “I simply cannot forgive myself

      My ex wife could not forgive herself either for a different issue. For over a decade she struggeled with the emotional pain after an abortion she had (before she met me). There was a few times it caused her to cry on my shoulder. There are some who think I shouldn’t have anything to say as a man but her pain was real. I researched at the time because I wondered if it was common and found articles by a few women talking about this pain in various magazines back in 1993.

      Some on the left diminish the pain these women feel as not real or contrived. One of the biggest failings of the so-called open minded tolerant left is the ability to hear other’s viewpoints. Sarah thinks we should hear terrorist viewpoints. Others think conservatives are evil and have evil viewpoints without listening to what we say. But this is just a simple issue of a woman talking about her pain. I’m sure it doesn’t affect every woman but liberals should at least OPEN their mind to the fact that it’s a pain that some women have to deal with and therefore real.

    15. Baklava says:

      OH yes. and Happy 29th birthday ST ! At least when I ran tests on your picture of your eyes that’s what the scientific calculations said you were..:d

    16. T-Bone says:

      I agree with everything in this heart felt post ST. There is a great deal of emotion (on both sides) in this arguement. I think that gives cover to another issue that should be addressed…”JUDICIAL ACTIVISM”!!! The fact that this contraversial issue was not given to the electorate to decide is a travisty (sp?) It was forced on the public from on high, by 5 of 9 judges who decided to make the Constitution fit their political beliefs. To me, that is another issue of this debate, the killing of our founding beliefs.

      Happy (belated) Birthday ST!!!! This is an incredible site…keep up the great work!!!

    17. CT says:

      So much of pro-choice is really anti-responsibility. If you drink too much, you become a lush. Do too many drugs you’ll become an addict. Eat too much you get fat. Have sex often enough, and you’ll be a parent. There are consequences to everything we do. Many on the left don’t want the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of sex (i.e. being a parent) and desperately want the easy way out. Kinda chickens**t of them if you ask me.

    18. CT says:

      Oh, and happy birthday!

    19. Steve Skubinna says:

      It does seem bizzare to be concerned that an aborted fetus would be disposed of “with dignity,” considering that nobody asks the same for an excised tumor. Definite logical disconnect there, but it bespeaks a serious emotional quandary.

      As for myself, I am not permitted to hold an opinion on abortion, being a male representative of the masculine gender. No kidding, a woman actually told me once that no man has any business expressing an opinion on the topic.

      I was, and am still puzzled by that argument, however. As a former fetus is strikes me that I do have a stake in this argument. But I guess that’s a topic forever off limits to me, just as since I am not a current member of the armed forces I may not support the war (but I know that were I still in, I couldn’t legitimately support the war due to being an uneducated, no hope last chancer with no prospects).

      I need to make up a list of things I am not allowed to think about. Perhaps one of our loyal lefty commentators can provide me one? And please, no cop outs like “everything.”

      I trust that I am still permitted to wish ST a happy birthday. Heck, even if not, I shall anyway. Have a great one!

    20. Severian says:

      This is, no doubt, an emotional and polarizing topic. Not being religious, I don’t have the same magnitude of moral problem with it that some do, however it still is not a good practice and is ethically/morally ambiguous at best, and I don’t like it. There is no way I can say it’s a non issue or a good thing but at least for first trimester abortions I’m not willing to personally advocate banning them.

      From the standpoint of sheer practicality, reducing the population via abortion doesn’t help us, when Islamists and others are breeding like rabbits, and reducing the population also doesn’t help with issues like a graying population moving towards retirement with a shrinking number of young workers to support the system. From an ethical/moral viewpoint, no matter how you slice it, it kills a human being, albeit an immature one, or a potential one, whatever. There is a real spectrum here though. Many who don’t support abortion also support and practice birth control. If you use an IUD or the Pill, how is that different in the total scheme of things? Both these techniques prevent a fertilized embryo from being successfully implanted in the womb, which is the same thing as abortion philosophically only it occurs when the foetus is only one cell, or a couple of cells, large. Is this really different? How many cells does one need to have before it becomes a foetus that should be protected if you are Pro-Life? I don’t have any answers, it’s a seriously difficult question.

      I personally believe 3rd trimester abortion is unambiguously murder, PBA is an abomination on par with infanticide. To me, again personally, 1st trimester falls more into the same realm as the IUD and Pill, and the 2nd trimester is just confusing as hell. It’s such a continuum from one cell to many to baby that it’s hard to draw the line unless you are Catholic and believe that any birth control is wrong.

      As to Catholics and a total ban on birth control, I’ve felt the ban makes no sense, for barrier methods like condoms or diaphragms, as they basically accomplish the same thing that the “rhythm method” does, keeping sperm from egg. I’ve never understood why rhythm method is OK but condoms aren’t, but I can understand why they’d not want to use IUD/Pill as a method.

      No matter what, the opinion of Roe V. Wade was badly decided legally. It never should have been made the law of the land, that’s not a federal issue, but a state issue. This is a prime example of how politics is better the more local it is, the states themselves should have made the decisions based on what their local population wanted. There is NO Constitutional basis to make abortion legal (or illegal) in my view, the Constitution doesn’t speak to it, unless you think the Equal Protection clause applies to unborn people. The Supreme Court was way off base with this.

      For liberals, however, abortion appears to be a sacrament, how else can you explain their virulent opposition to reasonable restrictions on PBA. These absolutists are by and large the same people who complain loudly when we conservatives resist their attempts to pass more gun laws, whining that we aren’t reasonable, while they refuse to budge an inch on things like PBA bans. Here’s a hint, there is a Constitutional guarantee of gun ownership, there is no such thing for abortion.

    21. Marshall Art says:

      Severian,

      Allow me to help clarify a few things. First, you say,”…I don’t have the same magnitude of moral problem with it that some do…” The question must first be, is the fetus, or even just fertilized egg, human or isn’t it? There must be only one answer to that question. It can’t be a maybe. Science and logic dictate that it is indeed a human being in it’s first stage of development. Allowing for healthy parents that won’t engage in activity harmful to the developing life, a human being is all it will or can be. It won’t be a puppy, anymore than a puppy zygote will become a human being. It’s value is inborn and is not a result of it’s development. It can’t help that it’s -9mo old anymore than a 2yr old can help it’s age. We’ve determined that skin, hair or eye color doesn’t alter one’s value as a human being, and the same is true for one’s age, size or number of toes. So that third trimester line of demarcation you’ve drawn is no different than lines of color drawn by racists or lines of gender drawn by sexists.

      There are many who support other forms of birth control without understanding exactly what happens when using them or the potential of what can happen. I don’t believe in the Pill or morning after pills because they do prevent the development of already conceived human beings and thus is chemical abortion, which isn’t really taken into account when tabulating the deaths since Roe. Whatever the true number can most likely be easily tripled when considering what the birth control pills have accomplished. Mostly Roman Catholics object to the use of any other than the rythm method. This is because they believe that it takes God out of the equation in reproduction and the rythm method allows for the possibility that conception is possible if not precise. But Protestant Christians believe the Bible allows for a married couple to enjoy sex for the sake of enjoying sex without having to risk caring for another child.

      Despite the legal precedents thus far, I feel that even state legislation is premature if the issue of a fetus’s humanity isn’t first resolved. I don’t see this as a majority vote thing. I believe it has to be that the onus of disproving scientifically the humanity of the fetus is on the pro-abortionists.

      But the issue is not about choice, or privacy or any of that crap. It’s about the character of a people that has decided that sex is something that one can’t be expected to resist and as a result, they’ve concocted this notion that perhaps a child is not a child simply because it is only one cell in size and development. If it isn’t human, we can party all we want because if pregnancy occurs, we won’t be killing a person. Can there be anymore heinous an example of irresponsibility and selfishness? I don’t think so and I don’t think one’s belief in Deity matters in the least to the question.

    22. Marshall Art says:

      BTW Sev,

      I meant no disrespect in any way during the above.

    23. Bumping this up for Sev – Marshall, your post got caught in the mod que overnight, I just released it this morning. Sorry about that!

    24. Severian says:

      I didn’t think you did Marshall Art, and your post is well thought out and eloquently expressed. And, you have my admiration for having a completely consistent and obviously well thought out viewpoint. The fact that you recognize the similarity between the Pill and early term abortions means you’ve obviously thought seriously about this. I agree, and that’s the point I was trying to make, that many people don’t understand exactly how birth control actually works.

      You said:

      But the issue is not about choice, or privacy or any of that crap. It’s about the character of a people that has decided that sex is something that one can’t be expected to resist and as a result, they’ve concocted this notion that perhaps a child is not a child simply because it is only one cell in size and development. If it isn’t human, we can party all we want because if pregnancy occurs, we won’t be killing a person. Can there be anymore heinous an example of irresponsibility and selfishness? I don’t think so and I don’t think one’s belief in Deity matters in the least to the question.

      I totally agree. A lot of this entire issue is driven by the left’s total abdication of taking any responsibility for their actions. I personally am not comfortable saying a fertilized egg is a person, but somewhere along that line you have to make that determination, which is why I believe PBA is an abomination. At least your position is completely morally consistent. And, I am not willing to throw Pro-Life people under the bus. What they have to say is, IMO, more valid than what most of the Pro-Abortion folks say.

      One thing that consistently amazes me is how the left, the multicultural, everybody is equal, left, ignores the fact that the major proponents of abortion in the early days were eugenics supporters and viewed this not as something a woman needed to have for her own sake but rather as something that needed to be done to reduce the population of minorities and other undesirables. No matter what you may feel about the debate today, pro or con, the simple fact is that this entire pro abortion movement is based on disturbing and reprehensible foundations. Even if you feel that a foetus is not a person, how can you be comfortable knowing your movement is founded on lies and racist eugenics? But liberals really have a unique ability for selective memory and outrage.

      Not being a female, and never having been pregnant (now that’d be a medical first eh?) I am not willing to completely say that there can never be a reason that should allow this. I just can’t make that judgement, but I also can’t say I like abortion or what it does to both baby, mother, and society at large.

    25. Severian says:

      Just wanted to add, other cultures have placed the demarcation line at what constitutes a person at various places. In ancient Rome, if memory serves, you could place a child up to age 1 or so on the trash heap on the edge of town if you didn’t want them. If anyone else did, they could pick them up and claim them as their own, otherwise they died of exposure. So, some view a person as starting as a fertilized egg, some cultures didn’t even view a 1 year old as a person, which is pretty incredible to us today. Different people, based on their beliefs, will draw that line at different places, which is part of what fuels the continued debate over this. As I said, I’d put that line a lot closer to conception than the pro abortion crowd does.

    26. ausblog says:

      The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a United States law which defines violent assault committed against pregnant women as being a crime against two persons: the woman and the fetus she carries.

      This law was passed in 2004 after the murder of the then pregnant Laci Peterson and her fetus, Connor Peterson.

      If it is right for a man (or woman) to be charged for homicide and sentenced to prison ( or worse) for killing the unborn (and rightfully so) then the unborn should have equil consideration in relation to abortion..

      Is a fetus earmarked for abortion of any less value to a fetus killed by violence.

      Is not abortion a violent attack on an inocent life just the same.

      It’s just not ethical to protect one without the other…..they’re one and the same……..

    27. Rebecca says:

      I am wondering why you wrote that you hope anyone who considers themselves “proabortion” might perhaps read your article and then change their mind. I don’t know anyone who is pro abortion myself. When people who are pro life use this term, they are implying everyone in the pro choice movement is pro abortion. While I agree that some of them are, or at least seem to be in their zest for arguing for the continued right to have an abortion, a great majority of people in this country who consistently vote to support the laws protecting the right of a woman to choose whether to continue a pregnancy feel that abortion is a very terrible, tragic thing indeed.

      Someone posted here that until people stop talking past each other, no one will hear the other side’s views, and therefore, nothing will change. Calling everyone who is prochoice “pro abortion” is particpating in the kind of incendiary language that will not result in any minds being turned.

      I will not attempt to debate you, as you are clearly beyond hearing anything with which you do not already agree. I will share this, though. I, like you, am a person who has changed her mind about abortion. I used to be quite militantly pro life. I still think abortion is a terrible thing, a tragedy whenever it happens. However, in certain cases (rape, incest, and various health concerns of the mother) the pregnant woman should have a right to prayerfully decide what to do. And there is no way to legislate that…

      I truly believe the way to fight abortion is to try to reach out to all people at risk, and to help them have a vision for a better life, and to teach them about love.

      Also, your thoughts about birth control reflect a moral stance that not everyone shares. You can’t force ideas about sex before marriage onto people, nor can you force people not ready for children not to have sex even if they are married. Not everyone feels that sex before marriage is wrong. Not everyone feels that sex without an express intent or willingness to create a child is wrong. Birth control is a very postive way to avoid unwanted pregancy, and the neglect, abuse, or even abortion that can happen to a child as a result.

      For a while, I practiced Catholic “birth control”. It is really very effective nowadays. But I grew tired of everyone in that world telling us that we were sinning if we were practicing it so as not to have children. The only acceptable way to use NFP apparently is to plan WHEN to have children, at least that is what I was told until I was blue in the face. I don’t want any more children, adn I am tired of the catholic church telling me that makes me a bad person. If I am going to hell anyway, I might as well save myself the trouble and use birth control, so that is what I do. Really, the catholic church baffles me sometimes.

      All those who might suggest that someone like me should leave the church…not to fear…I have already joined a church where my beliefs are not condemned. I am WELL aware that the catholic church does not want people like me around….

    28. Baklava says:

      Rebecca wrote, “Someone posted here that until people stop talking past each other, no one will hear the other side’s views, and therefore, nothing will change. Calling everyone who is prochoice “pro abortion” is particpating in the kind of incendiary language that will not result in any minds being turned.

      I would agree with you that the language has gotten more and more course – all based on disagreeements.

      This pargraph of yours could be applied to the following issues where leftists think the right is for something bad:
      1) Global warming
      2) Terrorists suveillance (not domestic wiretapping as leftists call it)
      3) Minimum Wage
      4) The Iraq War

      Rebecca wrote, “However, in certain cases (rape, incest, and various health concerns of the mother) the pregnant woman should have a right to prayerfully decide what to do. And there is no way to legislate that…

      Most conservatives would agree with that position as it would reduce abortions by 99% and it certainly could be legislated. Too many times the partial birth abortion law has either been veto’d or filibustered and it included protection for the life of the mother.

      Germany, Britain and other European countries have bans on abortion past a certain week such as 12 weeks or 14 weeks.

      Rebecca wrote, “adn I am tired of the catholic church telling me that makes me a bad person.

      And I’m tired of the bob’s and tommy’s of the world telling me what makes me a bad person. I have to be for the Kyoto treaty or I’m not for progress and an idiot?

      Rebecca wrote, “Really, the catholic church baffles me sometimes.

      So does Planned Parenthood. They baffle me. Their distortion of the record and opposition to good people running for Congress and suppport for people who are economically illiterate (Democrats/leftists in general) with tax payer dollars is unconscionable. But they have the right to believe what they want to believe just like the CatChurch. Can you let it go? Do churches have to bend to its current membership thinking? Maybe. But I kind of like their messages for the most part. Their messages help usually. I disagree with the church when they take out full page ads urging Bush not to attack Afghanistan as they did after 9/11 – that’s why I left the Catholic church. It’s leadership wasn’t reflective of the bible that I knew. You left because the church’s leadership does not reflect your beliefs (which is different than the bible).

    29. Rebecca says:

      I love the idea of a ban on all abortions past 12 weeks, with the exception of rape and incest and the health of the mother, since pregnancy in these cases, or the risk to the health or life of the mother in these cases, can’t always be determined within that time frame.

      And I also love baklava.

      I just think it’s too much to ask a woman to go into a court and prove she was raped, or that incest happened.

      I agree the whole partial birth abortion thing is just….mind boggling. I think the pro choice advocates at the top have lost their minds and are not in touch with most of pro choice america.

      When I was in college, I was poor. Really poor. I was so thankful that there was a planned parenthood to go to for health care. At that time, I was a card carrying,militant pro lifer. And I was so angry, really angry, the day I showed up for my pap smear and had an angry, middle aged white man snarl insults at me as I walked across the parking lot. It occured to me then that this was not the best way to reach people who were thinking of having an abortion…It certainly was the beginning of the end for me in terms of supporting the pro life movement.

    30. Rebecca says:

      The bible has a way of reinforcing many contrasting beliefs, depending on where you are reading and how you are interpreting what you read. I won’t ask how your reading of the bible supports war, I know it’s in there somewhere. I am wondering though what Jesus would think of our war. I suspect He would be a quite radical liberal. I am quite comfortable with my belief system being in tune with my devotion to Jesus and my love of the human race, for all its flaws…I am always asking myself, What would Jesus do? I know it has become a cliche in some circles, but it is such a wonderful question to keep in the back of our minds all day.

      God bless all of you here!

      Rebecca

    31. Baklava says:

      Rebecca wrote, “And I was so angry, really angry, the day I showed up for my pap smear and had an angry, middle aged white man snarl insults at me as I walked across the parking lot.

      I don’t blame you. Mean people are in every organization. People without perspective also. There are kind and warm (just misguided) leftists and kind and warm conservatives.

      I have a neighbor who is a knee jerk mean redneck conservatives who give conservatives a bad name. I have a nieghbor who is an NPR listening mean uncaring leftist. I treat each of my neighbors as kind as I can though because good neighbors are a higher priority of mine than controlling them. You have to accept what is is with neighbors sometimes.

      As far as pacifism and Christianity – you should read works or listen to Dennis Prager. I have formed beliefs very similar to his.

      Pacificism is more dangerous than vegetarianism. Because with pacificism and the belief in non-violence (in all cases – otherwise it isn’t pacificsm it is just the belief in trying not to do violence), evil go unchecked to do as much harm as they can. There used to be a poster here named Steve – I posed an actual hypothetical to him.

      An Islamic fundamentalist (in the news story) had gone and killed each one of his kids one by one with the woman crying and pleading with the man to stop. I put Steve there – his only answer was that he would do the SAME as the woman – plead for the man to stop. With this story it was easy to show how his belief ended up in more death whereas someone who would’ve been a man and didn’t think SO BIG of himself that he could simply talk the man out of his actions but through the kindness of his heart actually physically STOPPED the man by whatever means necessary (as cops do all the time) when trying to “control” a situation.

      Additionally, leaders and observers of crimes against humanity are NOT required to turn the cheek of the victim(s). Just the opposite. They are required to act, to protect, to bring force to evil. A husband would never be required to turn the wive’s cheek to her rapist. He would be required to show love and bring evil to a halt and he would not be guilty for murder if it ended badly for the criminal. A president would not be required to offer another building of people but to set boundaries and expectations with the terrorists including the fact that their actions will not be tolerated and we cannot simply wait for more attacks on our soil anymore. Negotiation with mad evil people is not an option.

      Vegetarians only affect themselves unless they impose their health illiteracy on their children (as children need all sorts of protiens and acids). The last half of life can be accomplished without meat but vegetarians don’t allow evil to thrive they just simply do not eat meat.

      Therefore Pacificsm is by far more negative and should be taught against.

      However, it is true that war and force should be a last resort. That is a different question from the question “do we pull our troops out now” because that would result in lots of death and a worsening humanitarian crisis until evil people in the Middle East prevail and create their power structure that is unopposed (as happened with the hundreds of thousands of humans who perished when we left Vietnam).

    32. Rebecca says:

      I would definitely kill that man killing his kids, if I had the means. I guess that means I am not a pacifist.

      I think the circumstances of this war are a little different. But I am not so sure that I know everything about what is going on over there to be completely sure about it either way. I do think we are literally inspiring more and more terrorists each and every day that the whole mess goes on.

    33. Baklava says:

      I think Rebecca – if the American public knew 1/10th of what they should know about the millions of Islamofacists that have been raised with such hate that they can’t possibly be cured – they’d want harsher and tougher action to protect themselves from these people.

      I submit to you that the question about what we do about the 10% of people who follow Islam who want to “kill the infidel” is complex.

      We definitely should be as compassionate as we can be – but what has been going on and what is being planned for attacks on this nation needs people with stomach and due diligence – not lazy accusations.

      I respectfully submit that it is a lazy accusation that we are creating more terrorists by bringing democracy to a nation and removing a brutal dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his people. It might be that you’ve been reading too much “mainstream” drive-by legacy press (who has no interest in helping this nation to victory) and need to change your sources of information.

      At least do research and think for yourself.

      I was a liberal once. I converted to conservatism in 1991 after visiting the library 4 times a week for a full year. I’ve been reading and learning ever since on a variety of topics. And see what I’m doing on a Friday night? :)

    34. Rebecca says:

      I actually have read quite a bit about this, I just know enough to know there is so much more to know. It isn’t a lazy acuastion, but terrifying one, and all too true. I doubt there is even one small thing we are doing in Iraq that will make the world safer from terrorism….

    35. Rebecca says:

      I’m sure you do know much more than I if you read than much, but I still think, based on what I HAVE read, that there is something very dangerous about the Iraq war for us. The president convinced the country to go in there on false pretenses. There was much at stake if we were to fail. He was too stupid to realize the civil war which was inevitably going to follow…but the terrorists weren’t. They have been milking that ever since, and I don’t think there is a way to win that war, to make the area stable. We would have been MUCH better off leaving the whole thing alone. The devil you know being better than the devil you don’t….Incidentally, I read the New Yorker cover to cover each week, which takes more time than I actually ahve…then my poor ultra conservative father sends me articles from “The Economist” to read…I actually don’t think the two mags contradict each other much…the ultimate meaning is too scary and too clear. I try to pepper in articles from online too….

      Who are we going to invade next? Iran? Pakistan? Any number of African countries? Saudi Arabia? The whole world? Maybe Britain, since the last big foiled plot (the one we know about) involved people from there….Maybe we should turn our own coutnry into a police state since our famous civil liberties allow terrorists so much freedom here….But they are EVERYWHERE and taking control of any one country (which even that is obviously not what has happened in Iraq) is not going to help. We need to think about what is. I think the words peace, love and generousity figure into what could help somewhere….

    36. Baklava says:

      Rebecca wrote, “It isn’t a lazy acuastion, but terrifying one, and all too true

      What I was trying to say unsuccessfully is there a LOT of writers out there who have made the lazy accusation and there are a lot of writers on the other side (not paid any attention to by the legacy drive-by media) who have debunked those accusation with common sense.

      How?

      They have identified and counted the ranks of Al Qaeda and how many have been killed or captured. There actually is data on this and NOBODY needs to speculate. We’ll see these types of accusations in print over and over but seeing them in print doesn’t make them true. The lazy ones are the ones who wrote it in the first place – not you.

      Rebecca wrote, “I doubt there is even one small thing we are doing in Iraq that will make the world safer from terrorism….

      The pessimism is unfortunate. People could’ve had that perspective when we spent 7 years rebuilding Japan and 10 in Germany but they didn’t because the media has changed. From day 1 the legacy drive-by media has given aid and comfort to the enemy, emboldened them, challenged them to step up to the plate and fight us basically, giving them the impression that they could drive us out and we are this close “” to leaving.

      Iraq is such a ‘small’ problem compared to what we fought in WW2. We lost more men in the battle for a VERY small island named Iwo Jima and in a much smaller timeframe than Iraq.

      Given an Iraq that is free of Saddam and a representative republic, prosperity and education would be Quadrupled every decade as Japan and Germany has seen. It would be hard for a ‘Saddam’ to come in and take the prosperity away from them once they’ve tasted it.

      Rebecca wrote, “The president convinced the country to go in there on false pretenses.

      You REALLY do need to change your sources of information. The President was saying the same things as many others including Democrats like Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Albright, Edwards, etc. Additionally, they were saying these things as far back as 1998 before Bush took office in 2001. Additionally – the intelligence that the U.S. had, the British intelligence, French Intelligence, German and Russian intelligence all thought that Saddam had ‘stockpiles’ of weapons of mass destruction. So what Bush “sold” to the people was what the world believed and what Democrats said. It is highly convenient for Democrats and the drive-by legacy press to put ALL of the words back on Bush and then call him a liar or someone who “manipulated intelligence” when Bush did nothing of the sort.

      I know how being duped is – as I was pre 1991. I do not judge you Rebecca for being duped. I hope you don’t take offense to me saying you are duped. But really – it simply isn’t true that Bush has a bad heart and wanted to do the things that he has been accused of. I personally disagree with over 50% of Bush’s policies as Bush is actually too far left – that is for another conversation – and the result of leftist policies is a weaker American and more poor people and more people in misery.

      Rebecca wrote, “I don’t think there is a way to win that war,

      No. You wouldn’t given the sources of info you read. But let me put it to you this way. It is imperative that we strive for victory here. The 3 million Cambodians that died when we left Vietnam will be similar to what happens when we leave Iraq. ADDITIONALLY, however there is the terrorist’s obectives. The Vietnamese didn’t want to then follow us over here and take over America. The radical Islamists (see what that word means from Daniel Pipes) want to first establish an Islamic Caliphate in the middle East and then move to the EU and the U.S. and either you will have to submit or die. Submit can mean peace for the pacifists of the bunch but it will mean you will be wearing the burka. For me – I don’t submit to anyone but my woman. :d and the IRS, and the local authorities, and my children, and my boss \:d/

      Rebecca wrote, “We would have been MUCH better off leaving the whole thing alone.

      That is 1 opinion. I think we would’ve been much better off without the drive-by legacy media creating so much disunity and giving the terrorists this constant feeling that we are this close “” to pulling out. Resolve goes a long way to de-spiriting the enemy. We would’ve been done a year ago. I also disagree with your opinion because of the oil for weapons (food) program where UN officials were receiving bribes and giving Saddam money instead of food for his people. It HAS been written by the Iraq Survey Group that Saddam was interested in re-establishing with his money the weapons programs and DID have weapons that could threaten Israel in violation of the 1991 agreement and UN resolutions. So, given those facts – it doesn’t seem like doing nothing would’ve been good (as we learned on 9/11 we can’t stick our heads in the sand) as time was on Saddam’s side.

      I do not understand your last paragraph. We are waging this GWOT (Global War on Terror) on many fronts (not just militarily) and all around the world. Countries like Britain are helping by trying to find and capture the terrorists within their own country before they can strike again. It is a matter of perspective here that we cannot simply give up because the job seems too big. I personally don’t think we are doing a good enough job in this GWOT either but I think we need to be more aggressive – taking down propagandist radio and TV and replacing it with messages of love not hate. Palestinian children learn from day 1 to hate the Jews and want to kill a jew. Sesame street type programs aimed at children brain wash children to want to strap bombs on them and kill. Time is not on our side – we need to try to make this world a better place and we can’t do that if we don’t take these information sources out. All of the environmental and abortion debate is irrelevant (yes we are off topic ST – sorry) if we can’t protect ourselves and change the minds of the people who are interested in killing millions of us and wiping us off the face of the planet.

    37. Rebecca says:

      I agree that it would be great to have a freer, richer, happier country there where Iraq is, sort of like the one that existed before Saddam…I just think the ones to pull that off would have had to have been Iraqis. A local revolution, where the people could fight behind a leader, overthrow their corrupt government, and the people in charge would understand all the local problems.

      But of course that was not going to happen.

      I actually stumbled upon this thread looking to see if anyone else felt the way I do in Connecticut about the pro life major hypocrisy that happened during the last election. Whatever key words I typed in led me here and I got interested….But what do you think of this? Here I am, living in Connecticut, a former pro lifer, now pretty consertaive pro choicer, until very recently catholic, who has been told all her life that to vote for a pro choice candidate is EVIL. You were going to HELL in a handbasket if you did that…no matter what other issues you felt were important, and what not. My dear old dad was big on that too, once. Now he suddenly had amnesia, along with most of the republicans and pro lifers here, and voted for Joe L., the biggest baby killing supporter on the planet! What happened to all those sermons I sat through, telling me I should not take communion if I voted for any pro choice candidate? All those guilt trips? I cannot believe it! Because I’ll tell you what, the liberal pro choicers, for the most part, were behind Lamont here. All of them. It was the moderate dems and the pro life republicans who got us ole Joe again. Their moral high ground went down the toilet in my book. I’m tempted to spout some less than congenial words about supposing killing Iraqis is more important than saving the unborn to the pro life people in CT…but I won’t because even though it makes me mad, I know killing Iraqis is not what it is all about over there (the terrorists are killing many more of them than we are….) But obviously, this kind of moral dictate can be disregarded when the “other issue” besides abortion is important to the pro life side, and not anyone else. Incredibly hypocritical in my opinion.

      Incidentally, Sir Baklava, you are the nicest, most congenial conservative I have ever “chatted” with. You remind me of one of my favorite students (I teach college….I know, the typos are embarrassing, but I find it hard to take the time to proofread when posting to dicussion boards…) who liked to wear a tshirt that said “Liberals are not stupid, they just believe a lot of things that aren’t so.” He was a sweet kid, however much I disagreed with most things he said….

    38. Baklava says:

      Rebecca wrote, “A local revolution, where the people could fight behind a leader, overthrow their corrupt government,

      The nature of Saddam as a dictator was to kill thousands of people if he sensed an uprising in a city. You, Rebecca should accept what is is. And that is the fact that the people were not able to rise up against him. And post 9/11 we needed to stop the breeding ground for terrorists and there WAS collaboration going on with Saddam and Al Qaeda and he also gave thousands of dollars to families of Palenstinian suicide murderers. In IRAQ Rebecca we have killed and captured quite a few Al Qaeda leaders and it is only lies by the left to suggest that Al Qaeda only came to Iraq after we removed Saddam. It’s just not true.

      Your second to the last paragraph is interesting but you have to weigh your choices. Given a post 9/11 world most people think in terms of will we have a republic that we can debate the issues or not. We can belly ache about civil liberties, abortion, environment, race, etc – but if we can’t be strong on national security first then what’s the point. And Joe L. got that. He may differ on everything else but as leftism seems to me to be perpetuating a disease as of late of “lack of perspective” you get the Ned Lamont’s of the world who DON’T get it. Islamofascism is a serious threat and we need to continue a GWOT waged on many fronts not just militarily. Democrats in general have fought against this administration on every tool and none of them have been illegal as has been alleged. And alleged during a time of war even.

      Thank you for your last paragraph. Though misguided, You have not done what EVERY liberal here has done which is call names – though you do go on with the accusations as most liberals do. It’s about what you believe I understand.

      Here is something to consider. You do a lot of worrying about what other people think. Just develop what you believe based on history and research and facts. Hypocrasy? Don’t worry about it. What other pro-lifer’s screamed? Don’t worry about it. Those that you consider not nice people are part of EVERY group. You’ll find not-nice people working for GM, Ford, the Catholic Church, Lutherans, the police, librarians, Democrats, Republicans.

      Personally, I consider myself pro-life. Does that mean I condone every position that every pro-life person takes. No? Does it mean that I won’t vote fot a candidate that is not pro-life? No. All of that is nonsense is Barbara Streisand. We have to weigh a lot of factors when voting. I tend to look at the candidates OVERALL perspective. I tend to think that Democrats have a sorely lacking overall perspective on economics and national security which filters down to their lack of perspective on a whole host of issues. You Rebecca may disagree with me on those points but that is fine. Maybe you can realize that this country provides the most opportunity and prosperity to more people than ever. Our people below our poverty line have a better standard of living than the AVERAGE European. I’ll find those statistics for you one day if you are interested. You’d have to stick around. I have to get back to my tiling job or I’ll never finish this three day weekend and I plan to finish.

    39. Rebecca says:

      Yes that’s a BIG flaw, considering too much what other people think. you think I’m bad now, you should have “known” me when I was younger. Hey, we are all works in progress…..

    40. Lorica says:

      Jesus would of killed Sadamn Hussein without a trial. He is the King of Glory and Sadamn would not be able to stand he was to decieved not to believe that he was greater than Jesus. Much like Harrod was killed where he stood by God when he rejected the Gospel that was given to him by Paul and started to accept the adoration that belonged Jesus, and the worms ate him where he laid. Jesus would of raised the 500,000 people that Sadamn killed and threw in mass graves from those mass graves to be used a witness against him after he was struck down.

      You see Rebecca I too wonder what Jesus would think. But know that Jesus doesn’t see this life to be the end all be all. He knows that there is life after death, after all he conquered it. His concern isn’t this life, as much as it is the next. So evil needs to be aware of their deeds, and dealt with by good men – Lorica

    41. Rebecca says:

      Ah Michelle Malkin…she is a regular contributor to the newspaper I am so fortunate to get delivered….

      Actually, I have a lot of respect and admiration for the troops…I wish there was more I could do for them than send care packages…like bring them home (yes, I DID read the article and still feel that way) (I guess for your intentions there is no hope for me). Also, just to show that none of us can be pigeonholed, my family and I got so excited about care packages, we sent out five of them. It was a wonderful feeling, especially because dear friends of ours lost their son in Iraq in Aug 04. They are totally against the war now. So are many veterans of this war and other wars we have fought. My only point is that anectdotal evidence can be gathered on both sides. I won’t torment you will rebuttal articles.:)

      Lorica, I am glad to say I believe that in God’s world, we all get the equivilent of a trial, a much better one than we’d get here. And I would never presume to know how any single one of us would be judged….even an apparent gimmee like Sadamm. I can only speak for myself and how I live my own life.

      Hope your tile is going well, Baklava. And incidentally, about something else you posted, my point about the RTLifers voting in Joe, is that the “outside issue” can only (for them) matter if it matters to THEM. Yes I admit it, I find that irritating. But I think removal from the rhetoric will help with that. It is only recently we migrated to another church.

      I think you did help me to understand it a little though, why someone who believed certain things would think staying in Iraq trumped RTL. I feel as strongly about my own issues which unfortunately trump RTL at times.