Well Well, the so-called "Women's Right To Know" concept has come back to bite the anti-abortion centers in the behind. Imagine that! This comes under the category of "you live by that sword you will die by it" or "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Anti-abortion "Women's Right To Know" laws has forced abortion providers to give out state written anti-abortion information some of it scientifically unfounded - lies even - like there's a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Now what has gone around is coming around and they are complaining? Please.

If I were Boston legislators I would go even a step further in the "right to know" language and force them to tell women that the ultrasound they provide is not only used to "date their pregnancy or make sure there is a pregnancy" but it is used becuase they believe if they see their baby they won't choose to have and abortion . That's the part that is true and that they won't disclose for fear women will decline the ultrasound and there would go their opportunity to guilt women into not having an abortion.

I would also use the opportunity to force them to inform parents before they hook up a minor to their ultrasound machines for the purpose of guilting them into not having an abortion. Afterall, if parents should be involved in their minor child's crisis pregnancy when it comes to an abortion clinic that fact remains as true for an abortion clinic as it does for a so-called crisis pregnancy center. No minor should be hooked up to an ultrasound machine to guilt them into becoming mothers without the knowledge and consent of parents. AGAIN what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Peggy Loonan, founder and executive director, Life and Liberty for Women
peggy@lifeandlibertyforwomen.org

Peggy Loon,
Why are you afraid that a girl or woman who believes that she might be pregnant might make a pro-life decision after she sees her developing baby in her womb? Crisis pregnancy centers do not drag women in off the street. Any decision to visit such a center is absolutely voluntary, and the procedure of a sonogram requires an appointment, which means a second visit to the center.

It is totally within the Choice of the woman whether she wishes to have a sonogram or not; whether she wishes to have her baby or not; whether she wishes to raise her baby or put it up for adoption.

Counseling is offered of her options. There is absolutely no coercion.

These folks tried to get the Maryland legislature to pass similar legislation in the last session. After a full hearing, the committee of mostly pro-choice legislators killed the measure. Since the state legislature found the legislation not worthy of passage, they have turned to the localities, hoping they would not do such a careful job of looking at the issue. The Baltimore City Council, the Montgomery County Council, and all other jurisdictions targeted should follow the lead of the state legislature.

Peggy - If I understand you want a law requiring the centers to inform someone on what you believe the centers motives are. Why are you so afraid to let a girl or woman see an ultrasound? I’m sorry but your reasoning sounds like you are the one concerned that if a woman sees the unborn baby she will realize what abortion really is. How about this, we implement your idea, but also require ultrasound at abortion clinics in order for an informed choice to be made. As you said "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." I think parents of minors should be notified of any medical procedure and agree as well before it's done be it an ultrasound or an abortion.

I don't have a problem with requiring crisis preganancy centers to post signs indicating that they do not provde abortions, provided that abortion mills are required to post signs saying "We kill babies!"

First, Mary - In neither the first apt or the second when the ultrasound is actually done does the CPC's tell women the truth that they are doing the ultrasound in hopes that after seeing "their baby" they will opt not to have an abortion. Why not tell them the truth and if they still opt for the ultrasound fine. What are the CPC's afraid of? They're afraid that the woman will say no so they lie to her. Coercion comes in many forms. Guilt is a form of coercion Mary. No where in your answer did I see a denial of the fact that CPC's lie to women about the reason for the ultrasound so not only are you admitting they do so but you are condoning the lies. Shame on you!

Ravensfan: If an "abortion minded woman: who is told the truth behind why the CPC wants her to have the ultrasound - has it and then chooses not to have an abortion fine no problem. But it is lying and coercion to not tell her the real reason you want her to have the ultrasound and I know you get that. And abortion clinics do ultrasounds as apart of the procedure. I have no problem in requiring abortion clincis to offer the woman the opportunity to see it but I draw the line at anti-abortion attempts like in Nebraska to force her to view it. That is once again a coercive measure. Finally, I am glad you agree that CPC's should notify parents before hooking a minor girl up to the ultrasound in order to guilt her into becoming a mother.

Steven, no one entering an abortion clinic doesn't understand that an abortion will end a potential life. NO ONE!!

However, when women enter a CPC they have no idea that they can't get a referral for an abortion OR for contraceptives and that should be clearly understood and if it takes a move like the CIty Council made to make sure women are fully informed of what CPC's will and won't provide then such a move is moral, eithical and needed.

Peggy

Ok, then, Peggy. Then abortion mills need to do ultrasounds as well. Full disclosure, and all that.

Peggy, you're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

How one sided...then abortion Mills should provide FULL disclosure about the detrimental mental and physical effects of abortion on women plus should have to disclose, in the name of truth, what abortin does to the baby.
Additionally, I think they should be forced to disclose the full physical harm that can come to women from taking contraceptives as well as the enviromental damage done by contraceptives
Anything else would be hypocritical but it's not about truth is it...its about the desire to kill babies.

Peggy,

The baby inside the mother's womb is already alive. He or she is not a "potential life."

Mary and David,

It never ceases to amaze me just how uninformed your side is or perhaps they are informed and they simply refuse to admit the truth and reality of the disclosure that occurs in an abortion clinic because it doesn't fit your idea of what it should be.

First, EVERY medical procedure in this country in every state requires Informed Consent. Informed Consent requires the procedure be described (what it does to the "baby" and the risks listed. We have a scientific and medical community for a reason - so that wrong information - information based on a religious belief or a moral perspective outside of medical science isn't used as medical fact, ie. abortion causes breast cancer or higher suicide rates etc.

Contraceptives have been around since the 50's and improved upon in the years since. They are safe if used as directed like all other medications approved by the FDA. The number of unintended pregnancies that have been prevented in the last 7 decades because of contraceptives is clear. Contraceptives are here to stay which is why the "personhood" ballot initiatives will fail as it did last year in CO by a 3-1 margin and while this idea has failed in state legislatures.

And David, Abortion clinics DO Ultrasounds before an abortion. That has been standard for years and years.

The fact is you just don't like the same applied to CPC's that your side has been applying to our clinics. What goes around always comes around.

Peggy

Peggy – My question is how do you know what the women are being told? So far all I have is your opinion on the subject. If they are giving false reasons for the ultrasound that is wrong, but you really haven’t supported that claim. As for ultrasounds I disagree if you want an abortion you should see what it is you are aborting. No discussion or lobbying from e staff either way. If abortion isn’t what pro-life supporters claim why fight so hard to avoid looking at the ultrasound? What really troubles you is that by looking at it a woman will actually realize what it is she’s about to do and have second thoughts. Just as Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe, did when she saw one later in life. It’s much easier to justify if you don’t have to look at it. By the way the parents shouldn’t just be involved in the ultrasound decision, but the abortion one as well. You can’t have it both ways.

Dear "Peggy",

It's heart-breaking (and disturbing) that so many women - human beings who as a group should know what it is to be abused by those stronger than them - have deluded themselves into thinking that the killing of their own unborn children is some kind of "empowerment."

It's also baffling that so many women think they are empowered by making themselves sexually available to men at all times through "birth control."

Birth control and abortion are a dream come true for men who want to use and abuse women.

If the central issue were anything but sexuality, everyone would be screaming from the roof-tops that this is insanity, that it harms and kills. But after dozens of studies illustrate a serious link between abortion and breast cancer, we get responses like yours, even sometimes from people in the scientific community. The denial and political correctness run deep. Pro-abortion rights people are desperate to believe there is no link. It's just weird. If this were anything but sex, again, is there any doubt that people would be saying "well, why would I take a chance on that?"

How long did it take the scientific community to come around on SMOKING, for heaven's sake? Why? Because smoking was deeply ingrained in our society. People WANTED their smokes, they were addicted to them and people made MONEY off of them (just like Planned Parenthood profits off the killing of unborn children).

The latest study proving the link between abortion and breast cancer is from the "anti-abortion" extremists in....wait for it.....China:

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/091111/index.htm

Remember, China *forces* women to have abortions. (Something the pro-abortion rights people over here fight strenuously against....not!)

An unborn child has a heart-beat at 3 weeks after conception. Brain waves at 6 weeks after conception. She has her own unique DNA that will never be repeated from the moment of conception.

One day, God willing, the human race will look back at this dark period in the same way that we look back a the Nazi extermination of Jews and wonder, "How could human beings *do* such evil to other human beings?"

Peggy, no abortion clinic does ultrasounds and allows the pregnant mother to see her unborn child. They have fought for years about allowing pro life counseling centers to even have ultrasounds. Planned Parenthood makes their money doing abortions, not on adoptions or having women raise their own babies. This is a multimillion dollar industry, look at the director of PP who came out recently and said it in plain English. PP is evil and those who support their agenda are evil as well.

As usual, another thread populated by ignorant anti-choicers who want to protest about anything that is against their own personal view. Their comments are outdated and ill-intentioned. The majority of people don't know what they are getting into when they happen across a CPC. ALL people know what their options are when they go to PP.

Kat, abortion clinics do allow women to see an ultrasound if they request it. And if you read carefully my first post you would know that I don't oppose requiring abortion clinics to show a woman the ultrasound IF SHE requests it but I am opposed to laws that would require them to show women an ultrasound. IT is still up to her to decide.

MikeWF, Roe vs. Wade correctly and morally balanced the right to life of woman and fetus by allowing states to step in to protect fetal life in the 3rd trimester or after viaiblity. 32 states and the District of Columbia have laws that make abortion illegal in the 3rd trimester except to protect the health and life of the woman. The decision to become a mother or not is left in the hands of each individual woman to make based on her own set of circumstances and religious and moral beliefs. Finally, illegal abortion never stopped abortion or saved "babies." It made it more dangerous to women but didn't stop it just like it doesn't today in other countries. The best way to prevent the need is by reducing unintended pregnancies with more birth control research, better birth control availability, and MEN and Condoms.

Ravensfan, Most states now have parental notice or consent laws for abortion but NONE requiring CPC's to involve a parent. The city of Baltimore is taking a good step toward making CPC's accountable. That's a very good thing and I would expect more cities to do the same.

Peggy

Peggy,

You have not clarified your "potential life" comment. Do you deny that the baby inside the mother's womb is already alive?

Steven

NotSorry - How you know " The majority of people don't know what they are getting into when they happen across a CPC". Is that based on any independent study or simply what you want to believe? Pardon me for saying that you post sounded rather ignorant.

Steven,

The zygote, embryo and fetus in the womb is alive as opposed to dead but prior to viability - 25-26 weeks at the outset and with extreme medical intervention - this life cannot survive outside of the womb. That's why I referred to it as potential life.

Peggy

Peggy - I found this on a website.

"Forty years ago doctors put the age of viability at about 30 weeks into pregnancy, or ten weeks premature. Twenty years ago it was 25 weeks. Today it is 20 weeks. But viability used to be 30 weeks and is now 20. What's changed? Have babies changed? Have mothers changed? No, what's changed is the medical know-how of the doctors and the sophistication of the life support equipment available to them. Forty years ago doctors didn't have all the high-tech medical equipment they have today, so babies who would have died back then can now be saved. So what is "viability" measuring? It is a measure of the state of medical science and technology in a particular place at a particular time; it does not tell us anything about the baby."

What this tells me is that viability is not a good method form making any determinations as it appears to have changed over time. Who knows what it will be 20 years from now.

I gotta say as a pro-choice person I feel that this is wrong. This bill is based entirely off the fact that people believe these clinics are lying to women. If they are, then someone bring on a civil suit and bring these places down. If they are honest and upfront with women, then who cares? I think the motivating factor here is that pro-abortion supporters HATE anti-abortion supporters and vice versa. Since the council is mainly pro-choice, they want to put restrictions on pro-life centers.

Like I said, I support the woman's right to choose. However, I understand the other side of the argument. The only way we'll get anywhere is to understand the other side. Posters like Peggy and MikeWF don't really offer anything valuable to the discussion.

First, A Step Back,

I don't believe you are pro-choice. I've had a number of anti-abortion people try that ploy before. If you were pro-choice you would have also added that the so-called Women's Right To Know Laws in many states now are about the same thing and they should be repealed.

Ravensfan,

http://www.dcdoctor.com/pages/rightpages_wellnesscenter/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment.html -- 1997 says in part:
"24th WEEK: 12", 1 1/2 lbs. (720 grams).
Baby is maturing, not considered viable (until 28 week).
28th WEEK: Baby can survive outside uterus if lungs capable of breathing.
10-20% survival if born at this time.
14", 2 1/2 lbs. Viable (legally)."

http://stanford.wellsphere.com/women-s-health-article/viable-fetus-at-24-weeks-not-that-simple/702598
Viable Fetus at 24 Weeks - Not That Simple
Posted Jun 06 2009 10:20pm
Laws governing abortion often revolve around the concept of fetal viability, that is, after a certain number of weeks of developing, the fetus has the capacity for sustained survival outside the uterus. The usual figure for legal purposes recently is 24 weeks. This 1997 article in The NYT notes that "Babies born at this stage are known as micropreemies and are extremely fragile. The typical micropreemie weighs 500 to 600 grams -- slightly more than a pound -- and can fit in the palm of a hand."

So the OUTSET of viability is no where near 20 weeks and is never likely to be. Why? Because vital human organs like the lungs have a threshold at which they will keep a fetus alive. That threshold goes only so far and no science around can lower that threshold once we've reached it. And we've reached it. There's a threshold at which the human body can sustain itself outside of the womb and when that threshold is reached - as it is now - we can't improve on that.

Therefore, viability that we can be sure of - the threshold appears to be around 28 weeks. Viability is on a bell curve. A fetus born at 24 weeks may survive with some medical and physical and developmental issues but one at 28 weeks won't survive AND VISE A VERSA. That's because every pregnancy is different and many factors can contribute to the fetuses growth and progress in the womb. But in either case or any case there still is that threshold to consider.

Peggy

Peggy,
Believe whatever you want to believe. I believe it's a woman's choice but since I encourage civil debate and open-mindedness then I'm secretly pro-life? I'm sorry I'm not as hateful and ignorant as some of those that feel so strongly about abortion. Honestly, abortion is not at the top of my list when it comes to issues. I just have major problems with government interaction...whether it's telling women what they can/can't do with their bodies or telling what private counseling centers can or have to do. I also have major problems with people who don't want to listen/respect others' opinions.

Anyway, I don't see this as an issue of abortion but as an issue of big government. I apologize if I'm not pro-choice enough because abortion rights is not at the top of my list of serious issues in today's society.

Peggy,

You're not facing up to simple science. The authors of Roe v. Wade were hopelessly ignorant of science.

From the moment of conception, an unborn child has a completely unique DNA and an autonomous life force that compels it forward in development through what is commonly known as a human lifetime. This is a simple biological fact. While that life develops and changes over time, the essential human-ness of it remains constant.

"From the moment a baby is conceived, it bears the indelible stamp of a separate distinct personality, an individual different from all other individuals." ~ Ultrasound pioneer, Sir William Liley, M.D. 1967

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into existence. This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." ~ Dr. Jerome Lejeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes, Paris. He discovered the Down syndrome chromosome.

"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." ~ Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School.

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." ~ Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic.

Now, what do we use to determine whether human life has ended? A heart beat and brain waves, yes? Yet most abortions occur after the young unborn child's heart has begun to beat (3 weeks) and/or measurable brainwaves are present (6 weeks) -- why is this so? Most women don't know they're pregnant until after their first missed period.

So why is it so difficult to at least acknowledge that we should not be stopping a beating human heart or silencing human brain waves?

Abortion involves the intentional killing of an innocent human being and it is therefore morally evil in every instance - regardless of the "reason". Period.

The kind of reasoning employed to justify it is disturbingly like that use by the Nazis while killing Jews, gypsies, homsexuals, the handicapped...et al. They were "untermenschen", sub-human. They were even described as "parasites" in much the same way that some of those who support abortion rights have described unborn children. After dehumanizing them, it was therefore permissible to kill them.

MikeWF,

The Jewish Faith defines the life of the fetus as beginning at birth while the Christian faith sees it at conception. There are many different views amongst us about when life begins.

Regarding abortion public policy then, the question isn't about when life begins it's about balancing the right to life and liberty between a born woman and the fetus that depends on her through the 6th month of pregnancy to sustain it's life in the womb.

Roe vs. Wade wasn't ignorant of science but rather it sought to balance the interest of the already born woman and her fetus.Roe recognized that at viability both interests could be equally protected but understood that before viability the already born life had an interest over the fetus that must be protected. In fact Roe goes further in protecting fetal life than God. http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/printer_friendly_pages/issues_god_bible_abortion.pdf

In addition public policy has a responsibility to respond to consequences of public policy in a manner that protects the public welfare. Illegal abortion doesn't stop abortion but makes it more dangerous to women and doesn't save a baby. Roe is the correct and moral public policy response to abortion.

So is the response of the Baltimore City Council.

Peggy

Peggy,

The number of abortions prior to Roe v Wade was in the thousands. After Roe v Wade it went into the millions.

And simply saying the beginning of human life is a matter of faith does not make it so. I presented the scientific facts with quotes from leading experts in the field: human life begins at conception. I don't care whether you are Jew, a Christian or an atheist. You've merely stated your personal opinion. You seem to be confusing the beginning of human life with the spiritual/theological matter of "ensoulment."

And I have enough Jewish friends and have had enough conversations with rabbis (Orthodox, Conservative and Reform) to know that the views of different Jewish sects vary in regard to abortion, there is no one "Jewish view."

I have to say, though, that after the Holocaust - in which Jews were defined as "untermenschen" or sub-human parasites - I am disappointed and baffled that more Jews are not on the front lines protecting vulnerable, defenseless human beings from destruction rather than taking the side of those who would use their power to destroy them. I say this as one who has a deep love for the Jewish people.

According to the last figures I reviewed from Planned Parenthood's own research arm (Alan Guttmacher), roughly 93% of all abortions are essentially matters of convenience. Only the smallest percentage have anything to do with rape, incest or the life of the mother.

The issue comes down to the humanity of the unborn child. The issue of "dependency" and/or "viability" is a canard. Even a born child is completely dependent upon her mother for survival. She most likely will even continue to gain her sustenance from her mother's breast for a year or more.

And a previous commenter pointed out another problem: if "viability" is the determinant of when life begins, then the definition of human life is completely subjective, dependent upon human advancement. That is an extremely dangerous position to take.

A woman in a coma, on a respirator in the hospital is also completely dependent upon others for her survival. Is she suddenly no longer a human being until she regains consciousness and is able to care for herself? Again, I am disappointed and baffled that you - as a Jew - would be advancing this kind thinking because history shows us where it leads.

I urge you to stand for the defenseless, the voiceless - wherever they are. One day, you may be one of them yourself.

Peace.

Just a quick addition - that article you linked to is an abomination and I will pray for you and whoever wrote it.

God alone has the authority to take innocent human life. He created it, He can take it. To equate His just actions with the selfish actions of men and women who destroy human life so that they may live as they wish is a blasphemy of the highest order.

Now, I hope you don't use my statement as a reason to continue to avoid the biological facts. I just felt that link you provided required at least some response. Oddly, you seem to be stuck arguing about faith, while I'm arguing from reason and biology.

.

MikeWF

First, Isn't it interesting that for all you and those of like mind make of abortion and "killing babies," God never spoke directly and on point to condemn abortion? He never condemned it because for him the beginning of life was at birth. READ the link I provided. The explanation is clear. You may wax poetic all you like about God and promote what you can't phathom a God not promoting - that is abortion is wrong and murder - but he never condemned abortion precisely because of when HE CHOSE life to begin - at birth. That means Roe goes further in protecting fetal life than God. God created the method by which we are concieved, grow in the womb and are born and if aborting the fetus from conception to birth offended him he would have let it be known loud and clear. He didn't WHY? - Because he doesn't believe as you do that life begins at conception. No matter how you define when life begins God simply doesn't agree.

Viability isn't the determining factor as to when life begins it is simply the point at which both woman and fetus can equally be protected in law and when the balancing between interests intersect. It is when a legal interest can be claimed by the state on behalf of the fetus.

You may believe that life begins at conception but by your own statements women don't know they are even pregnant at that point. A pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation. Science doesn't make a moral judgment about when life begins it simply takes us through the steps of biology. We as individuals determine for ourselves when life begins especially since God's view is that it begins at birth.

Second, you are absolutely wrong about the number of abortions that occured when abortion was illegal. The number is roughly the same. That's one of the problems with your side - you never bother to read about history and get the facts. Let's do some reasoning from fact.

Ruth Barnett (The Abortionist: A Woman Against the Law, Rickie Solinger 1994) provided safe but illegal abortions pre-?Roe. She performed 40,000 abortions between 1918 and 1968. Now let's do some math. That would be an average of 800 per year. It would take only 1,250 additional illegal abortion providers and midwives across the US during those years to reach a total of 1,000,000. Feasible? YOU BET

Read these books: When Abortion Was A Crime, Leslie J. Reagan, 1997 and Doctor's of Conscience by Carol Joffe, 1995. From them we learn about:
Dr. Josephine Gabler who did 18,000 abortions - an average of 2,000 a year between 1932-1941 in Chicago. If there were 499 other providers/midwives across the country doing a minimum of 2,000 a year the number would be 1,000,000.

Dr. Edgar Bass Keemer, Jr. He performed over 30,000 abortions in the next 35 years. That was an average of 858 abortions per years. It would have taken only 1,165 additional abortion providers/midwives across the country to reach 1,000,000.

The Jane Service chronicled in the book of the same title, a group of women doing abortions in Chicago, 1969-1973 did 11,000 safe illegal abortions and many were 2nd trimester. That's an average of 2,750 abortions a year. It would have taken only 364 additinal abortion providers/midwives across the country performing 2,750 a year to reach 1,000,000.

Because abortion is about determination and desperation not to become a mother - abortion numbers remain virtually the same when whether abortion is legal or illegal. That being fact, as a public policy we do better as a nation to keep it legal and work together to reduce the need for abortion by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. It doesn't matter when you or I personally believe life begins except how it impacts our own personal decisions. Our beliefs have no impact - nor should they - on a public policy in which legal or not abortion will exist.

Next I am not Jewish and when you compare an un-viable fetus with a woman in a coma or an elderly person, you are comparing apples and organges because those persons you cite are already born human beings and have personhood rights. There is absolutley no basis in fact for that comparison.

Peggy

To A Step Back,

It isn't a question of you being pro-choice enough it's simply a question of whether you are pro-choice at all.

Another dead give away in your first post? No one who considers themselves even slightly pro-choice would use the words "pro-abortion" supporters. You would have used the pro-choice language as you did in a couple of other areas of your comment. But you let it slip.

Peggy

Fantastic posts MikeWF. Clearly, it is a scientific reality that a life begins at conception. This FACT is being ignored or debated because of a convenience paradigm. It is 100% reactive.
Peggy, as you do put forth an interesting argument, the fact remains that by definition, abortion is murder. You can't avoid it. Forget your "hair splitting". If a woman is to be truly "free", her decision will include the little heart beat which resides in her. Freedom is not considering the termination of a life. Life is life. Freedom is to choose what is RIGHT. We could go around in circles for all eternity, and interpreting the biblical quotes as you see fit does not change the reality of the subject.
The real issue IS: When does life begin? Well, we know this, so how is it that abortions continue to this day? No one wants to admit that this is when life begins because they (we) know that it is NOT a "rights" or "born life vs unborn life" issue. Once you define life, it is CLEAR AS DAY.

Ironically, this (abortion) SHOULD be the biggest human rights atrocity of all time. Period.

MikeWF - You do, of course, realize that there are many who do not think life arose from your unprovable god creature. To state blindly that only your god can create life and only your god has control of it at all stages from (.) sized and totally non-self aware zygote, to that of an end stage sufferer your religion would deny the dignity of self termination, is the height of ignorant hubris. To think, that under our Constitution, you would be allowed to impose your 'sacred' precepts on those who clearly do not share them, belies your complete lack of understanding of the separation principle of the Establishment Clause of that august document, that clearly forbids the use of the coercive power of the state to impose religious doctrine. If you wish to not have an abortion, then by all means exercise your freedom and DON'T HAVE ONE, but don't deny them to those who don't share your delusional beliefs.

Lets take religion out of the equation. What are we left with?

Science. Biology. Then the termination of a human entity. A separate creation. You people equate ridding the female body of a fetus like taking a morning crap! (Excuse my deplorable example). How funny that we consider this a "horrible thing to say". Is it because it could be wrong to equate a fetus with excrement? YOU TELL US ROBERT/PEGGY.

People who lack such a catastrophic amount of VALUES scare the s*** out of me.
Thank God your like-minds are the minority.

pattycakes - People who would impose their superstitious beliefs on everyone in violation of the restraints in The Constitution are ones to be feared. To allow such travesty, all to placate your delusions and narrow beliefs, would be the worst kind of tyranny and lead inexorably to a theocratic dictatorship. You can rest assured the counter-revolution to re-establish The Constitution would be most violent in its execution, so as to discourage further treasonous acts in the name of your, or any other god. You have to remember, that it is The Constitution that protects your right to believe any silly stupid thing you wish, but it also protects us from people like you.

pattycakes,

Thank you. It's sad to see the moral and logical gyrations people will undergo in order to justify their immorality.

Sin darkens the mind and the senses, which is unfortunate enough. But to spread that kind of selfishness, hate and destructiveness to others with such energy? As Christ said, it would be better that they be cast into the sea with a millstone around their necks than to harm the least of his children (Luke 17:2). May God have mercy on their souls - and I mean that very sincerely.

What still is most saddening and baffling is to witness a Jewish person - who should know more than anyone how wrong it is to dehumanize others - engaging in this kind of ugliness.

Now I will recollect myself in thanksgiving (on Thanksgiving) that my mother never viewed me as a "choice."

From the moment of conception, an unborn child has her own, unique, never-to-be-repeated DNA. At 3 weeks after conception, she has a heartbeat. At 6 weeks she has measurable brainwaves. Since Roe v. Wade, 40-50 million innocent human beings have been killed in their mother's wombs in the United States. Innocent lives snuffed out in sacrificial homage to the "god" of "choice."

May God have mercy on us all.

Shalom Aleichem

I missed that Ms. Loonan is not actually Jewish - a previous post gave me that impression. My mistake.

But her article is still blasphemous. In it, she compares the actions of God to those of man in the case of abortion. That is blasphemy in the highest order. And I would not want to have to explain that to Him on Judgment day.

I really and truly pray you repent of that heinous article before you meet Him, Peggy. As much as I object to your beliefs in regard to abortion and oppose them with every fiber of my being , I still pray for your salvation.

May you have a graced Thanksgiving.

In Christ,

Michael

Pattycakes, Robert's and Peggy's like minded are not in the minority--there are millions of women who want you and your ilk to get the s--t out of their uteri. Try it--it may truly relieve you of your morning-noon and evening crap. Peggy, absolutely brilliant. As for Ravensfan being stupid enough to think that medical science will keep on developing endlessly so that even a one day old zygote can be nurtured into a whole human being-- so the Catholic bishops can march with it to their pews??--Ravensfan, I never knew you to be a fantasist on these posts, I guess you were playing oneupmanship. As for minor children having to inform their parents before getting an abortion--go view "Precious" the movie folks. There are many and I mean many instances in this country and across the world when minors have been raped and impregnated by their own fathers or step fathers, and their mothers have watched the outrage either ignoring it out of fear or they have been complicit out of apathy and denial. Go ask these parents for permission? For every black and white circumstance you anti abortionists describe there is a painful gray zone of dilemma. In the end abortion is an individual decision and a public policy about it should be as Peggy describes--a balance between the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother . In the eyes of the law--and the law may be an ass--the point of viability outside the womb was chosen to confer on the fetus the same rights as any person--until such a time the fetus depends on the mother and those of you who don't want gays in the Catholic church to be outed forcibly by mainstream gays because that would be a violation of the gay clergy's privacy better acknowledge that a woman too has privacy rights--the law protects her right to this privacy when it comes to the abortion decision--but only till the time of fetal viability--then the law protects the fetus even from her. This law of the land serves a larger public good--it keeps abortion out of barber shops. And Robert's argument in favor of the Constitution, you pro lifers have persistently either ignored, ridiculed or excoriated, but that argument is the most potent because what you guys impose on women is your personal and your religious beliefs completely in violation of the Establishment clause. You would convert America into the type of theocracy you want, with all women in it pregnant and barefoot--minus contraceptives this is where they would be and some of you pro life folks have admitted to hating contraception too--and constantly delivering babies, enervating them in the process.
Ravensfan Anon

Happy Thanksgiving all,

Let's thank God that we have our wonderful ability to think and believe as we wish. How dull it would be if we were all the same. This is a great gift. My arguments are well intended, as I'm sure you all have the greater good in mind.

Robert - I do not wish to "impose" on anyone any belief or "delusion". Thank God for the constitution and the freedoms which are promoted and protected. I see eye-to-eye here. What I fear what you are missing in the attempts of some "pro-lifer's" is that LIFE (according to the constitution) will be protected at all costs. That is not an issue which should be taken subjectively. We have differing views when it comes to life's beginnings. That fact is our FREEDOM to believe under the constitution. However, the fact that life is life at conception is a REALITY which no constitution should ignore. Why is that so objectionable? Why is that so inconvenient for you? None of you have come forth with an augment against the accusation of "murder". It's all about going off in another direction with a tirade condemning the pro-life as "the unconstitutional oppression of woman". Really? that makes no sense.
You guys need to "ante-up" and address the process of abortion and what it really is. Is that so hard? Does it make your stomach weak? Will your eyes be opened with rays of light shining down from the heavens? probably not. You wont let it. Your guys are too focused on the "straight and narrow" aren't you? does the phrase "deterioration of morality" mean anything to you? Again, I'm far from trying to "take your freedoms away". Just trying to save a few babies here. Could use a little help though. You guys wanna chip in?

Try this:
Let's all get on the phones and say "THANK YOU" to our mommas today. From the heart. We are on this earth sharing views thanks to them.

peace.

pattycakes - Despite your denial that you wish to impose your narrow religious perception of reality on the rest of us (denial being your stock in trade), it is evident that you are acting as a shill for interests that want to use the coercive power of the state to enforce what can only be considered a religious definition of when a zygote becomes a person. Your definition is dependant on the religious notion of it being 'sacred' based on the ensoulment of that entity, at the moment of formation. This is YOUR opinion and because it is steeped in religious origins, it cannot be allowed to be forced on those who have equally valid opinions that are in opposition to yours.

Your very own Catholic Church did not consider abortion wrong until 1869. Prior to that time, the procedure was allowed up to the moment of "Quickening" (the hardening of the bones, at which point the infallible Church determined that ensoulment took place. The interesting thing about that is that they stated that "Quickening" occurred at 40 days for males and at 80 days for females, and any abortion performed after 40 days was presumed to be female. (this is all documented in a Quaker produced booklet released in 1970 entitled "Who Shall Live"). Also mentioned was the fact that not only was it OK to have abortions up until 1869, but that it wasn't made a sin to do so until 1910. If you have any interest in getting a copy of the above mentioned pamphlet, it is available at abe.books.com and last time I checked, it was selling for $1.50.

Ms. Loonan,

God never spoke directly on pedophilia, bestiality or a host of other evils either - so that He never spoke directly on abortion doesn't prove He's fine with abortion. That's just a silly argument. Back in the days of Moses, they didn't have Planned Parenthood around to turn abortion into a mass-marketed profit making enterprise.

But the Christian Church has condemned abortion from the earliest days (1st century AD). This is from the Didache, the teaching from the 12 apostles:

QUOTE:

The Lord's Teaching to the Heathen by the Twelve Apostles:

1 There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference.

2 Now, this is the way of life:…

The second commandment of the Teaching: "Do not murder; do not commit adultery"; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; "do not steal"; do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant.

END QUOTE

http://priestsforlife.org/magisterium/didache.htm

If you want to argue for abortion as an atheist, you'll have enough trouble doing so but don't try to argue that abortion is compatible with Christianity. Please. That's just flatly dishonest or ignorant.

And following your argument about abortion numbers before and after Roe, let's repeal laws against stealing and murder, too, while we're at it. After all, most all people steal and murder out of a sense of desperation, right? You can't legislate morality, as they say.

How about laws against child abuse? People only abuse their children because they're in desperate straits. Laws against child abuse won't stop it.

:-/

The idea that laws against abortion don't seriously curb the numbers of abortions is preposterous on the face of it. You're wildly extrapolating and treating your extrapolations as facts. They're not.

Here's an interesting article with other stats on abortion before and after Roe. Slightly different angle than yours, I think:

http://www.grtl.org/docs/roevwade.pdf

Any way you slice it, abortion kills a young human being and decent people should recoil against it. Provide help, counseling, education, financial assistance, facilitate adoption, etc. YES. Kill innocent human life. No. Never.

Thank God the abortion holocaust survivors - the next generation - are rejecting abortion as the moral evil that it is. The pro-aborts are going the way of the hippies - they will be gone or irrelevant soon enough.

Paula - I you insist on using the rantings of your god as a justification for arguing for the forced breeding of unwanted fetuses to term, then you are going to have to cough up this god creature. Until you can prove it exists, then anything you attribute as having issued from said creature as your proof, with have to be held in abeyance.

Well, no, Robert. :-/ I don't "insist on using the rantings of your god as a justification for arguing for the forced breeding of unwanted fetuses to term", as you put it. I was arguing against someone who tried to justify abortion in a Judeo-Christian context.

The others have already handled the non-religious arguments well enough. The biological facts are very straight forward. Human life starts at the moment of conception. If you want to delude yourself that it is otherwise, that's your choice. When you start killing young human beings or promoting it to others out of your ignorance, then those of us who know better will have something to say about it.

And "god creature"? LOL Egads. At least understand What and Who God is (or at least as we believers propose Him to be, if that is too much for you!). "god creature" is an oxymoron.

Of course, you are perfectly free to disbelieve in God's existence. For now, at least. Personally, I disbelieve gravity. No one's ever showed it to me. Science doesn't even know how it actually works. I think it's something else.

LOL :-)

"The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God." (Ps. 14:1)

"The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Ps. 19:1)

And Robert - "unwanted"? By whom? And if being "wanted" by those in power to decide one's fate is necessary to justify one's right to existence - be careful. You may find yourself on the wrong side of that equation one day!

There are those out there that think even birth isn't enough, you know. Think I'm joking? Google Princeton bio-ethicist Peter Singer. His position is a logical conclusion drawn from your kind of thinking.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51963

Paula - It is those who claim that they are "those of us who know better" that we must fear. Take away our freedom in-order to pay service to your delusional beliefs, and you will find yourself in a world of hurt. Religious fascism will not be tolerated. There is always room for the believer in the secular world, but in your world there is no room for secular. Your world cannot be allowed to come into existence if there is to be any meaning left to the concept of fee will. We have seen what the worth of the individual has been in the past when religion is in control and determines what is heresy and blasphemy.

Robert,

It is truly dumbfounding that you don't comprehend the hypocrisy of your position. In defense of your definition of freedom, you would take away another human being's ultimate freedom: the freedom to exist.

When your definition of freedom defines another person right out of existence, you've crossed the ultimate line. And perhaps YOU will be defined out of existence next in the name of freedom.

There is little or no difference between your view and the view that the Nazis used to justify the slaughter of millions of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and handicapped people.

It is the pro-lifer who defends freedom. How strange that anyone could fail to understand that the good of "choice" is subordinate to the good of existence itself.

This has nothing to do with faith, heresy or blasphemy. It's simple logic that you're failing to grasp.

Now, I'm off to eat some of my Mama's famous apple pie!

God bless you, Robert!

MikeWF - Like all moral absolutists who have succumbed to delusional superstitionism, you seem to think that everything would be OK if only we all thought just like you. Got news for you bub, in the scope of things, until you gain a level of self awareness, you are no more significant than the bug that splats on your windshield in July.

First, it isn't that God didn't speak directly and on point to condemn abortion that makes my point but along with that is this: http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/issues/issues_god_bible_abortion.html.

You can't put words into God's mouth about this. For all you anti-abortion fanatics make of abortion and claim it's murder surely God would have spoke directly and on point to condemn it. Your explanation or argument of why he didn't is meaningless next to the proof I provide to the contrary and you're grabbing at straws. By the way I wrote the above article.

Second, as to the age old claim that abortion is murder. The law doesn't consider it murder and neither does God and the latter you can't prove otherwise.

In addition there's a good reason why the law doesn't see it as murder. There is a consequence that anti-abortion extremists refuse to deal with but never the less is a very serious consequence.

In this country we don't just punish a murderer (the dr when abortion is illegal) but we also punish the SOLICITOR of murder and that would be the mother, grandmother, sister, wife, and teenage girl. No woman is a "victim" of an abortion provider; she is a very willing participant. She is a co-conspirator. You can't call a woman who solicts an illegal abortion a victim but a woman who hires her abusive husband killed a criminal. Such thinking would turn the idea of punishing anyone who solicits murder upside down in our legal system. So these women, provided they survived the illegal abortion would then have go to prison or in states like TX could face execution by the state.

Then there's the woman and the teenage girl who would self-abort. Most women who died pre-Roe didn't die at the hands of an illegal abortion provider but at their own hand. Providing they survive self-abortion they would be a murderer and would have to be tried as one and face life in prison or execution by the state.

You'd better be VERY careful about throwing around the idea that abortion is murder unless you are not just willing to say publicly that you understand women and teenage girls would have to face prison and the death penalty but that you are just as willing to FORCE your legislators to pass just such a law - force them to call abortion murder in the law and put in place the same penalties faced today by anyone who commits murder or solicits murder.

If I'm an illegal abortion provider and the woman isn't charged and punsihed along with me, I would sue on the grounds that I wasn't being treated equally under the law.

So DON'T ignore but rather go argument by argument to disprove my argument that God doesn't condemn abortion or call it murder and why.

And don't ignore the common sense involved in the consequences of calling abortion murder.

Peggy

Peggy,

Forgive me, but I still find it bizarre that I have to explain to a woman that it is wrong to kill her unborn child. It's just surreal. It's also odd that you keep focusing on making this a religious discussion. Perhaps this is just a rhetorical tactic to paint opposition to abortion as mere religious fanaticism?

The biology and logic are very straightforward. Human life begins at conception and abortion destroys an innocent human life. There's no (honest) way around that. And logically, even as a libertarian, the right to life trumps the right to "choice." Again, very straightforward logic.

Your demand that I answer each and every "point" you make is a little humorous considering how many times you have ignored arguments and changed tactics during this discussion.

And by the way, the law didn't consider black people human beings with the same rights white people had either. The Supreme Court itself upheld that ruling, so appealing to the law doesn't establish anything in terms of fact and true justice. I also seem to recall that not too long ago, women were not legally allowed to vote....

And regarding God's take on abortion - you didn't answer the cogent rebuttal that was given by Paula. An argument from silence (as yours is) is no argument at all. That's a logical fallacy. As Paula pointed out, according to your logic, we can't be sure whether God opposes bestiality and pedophilia? Please.

Now, I know I'm not going to outlast a person who gone so far as to establish an organization devoted to abortion - as you have (not that I would really want to - honestly, discussions like this where a person tries to justify such brutality and selfishness are disheartening). I'm guessing you've probably had one yourself or perhaps people very close to you have you and so you will do anything before acknowledging what abortion is: the killing of innocent human life within her own mother's womb.

Thankfully, there is always forgiveness for us - but we have to seek it - from God (something I do very frequently - no claims to sainthood here!). And He is quick to forgive,indeed! I'll continue to pray for you (said sincerely, not as a veiled insult!).

Now, as you seem committed to this religious course you've embarked upon, there is much more that could be written, but I'll leave you with this:

God gave His authority to the Church in the person of the Apostles and their successors: "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." (Jn. 20:21-23)

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a135.htm

On matters of faith and morals, the Church has been given authority by God to bind and loose sin. This is what the Church has to say about abortion, something she has said consistently since the very beginning:

The Didache

"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

"The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).

The Apocalypse of Peter

"And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion" (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).

Athenagoras

"What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers? . . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it" (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).

Tertullian

"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).

"Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.

"There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] "the slayer of the infant," which of course was alive. . . .

"[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive" (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).

"Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (ibid., 27).

"The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]" (ibid., 37).

Minucius Felix

"There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide" (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).

Hippolytus

"Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!" (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).

Council of Ancyra

"Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]).

Basil the Great

"Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not" (First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374]).

"He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees" (ibid., canon 8).

John Chrysostom

"Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

Jerome

"I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder" (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).

The Apostolic Constitutions

"Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . [I]f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Start Quote -

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.'

Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law...Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. ...The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

End Quote

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil" Isaiah 5:20

Some people come to God's Word in order to conform themselves to it. Others come to God's Word in order to conform it to themselves. Those who try to harmonize abortion with God's Word are deeply into the latter camp.

Regarding the issue of calling abortion "murder" and the ramifications you are concerned about, both the civil law and the Church have always made distinctions based on one's level of moral culpability, extenuating circumstances, etc. The sinfulness of an act is objective, but the personal fault is subjective. The Church, in particular, considers the following crucial issues: 1) Full knowledge that the deed is gravely wrong, 2) Full consent of the will in making such a choice .

Under this formulation, there is room for grace in the case of a woman who feels afraid, alone, perhaps even coerced vs. a "doctor" who voluntarily and openly makes a profit off the killing of unborn children. Women who have abortions are also a second victim in many significant ways.

Now, I'm sure you will respond, but I'm not sure if I will be able to get back to this. So please don't jump to conclusions if I don't get back to you.

May God bless you, Peggy.

From the moment of conception, a new human being has a unique, never-to-be-repeated DNA that is as complete adult's. At 3 weeks after conception, she has a heartbeat. At 6 weeks after conception she has measurable brainwaves. Yet, in this country, she can be killed for any reason or no reason at all. 40-50 million unborn children have been killed in this country alone under the banner of "choice."

Before I run off here, I anticipate something that may need a little clarification. The "crucial issues" I mentioned are never a moral justification for abortion. The Church also teaches that we are all born with knowledge of the natural, moral law written on our hearts (whether we are Christian or not). As such, one may not claim to "not know" that killing the innocent is wrong.

We all know this in our hearts, even women who go in for abortions. However, the more one engages in sin, the more one's conscience becomes deadened (sadly, many women repeatedly seek abortions). Therefore, the only real exculpating factor is "free consent of the will". To the extent that women feel coerced, their state of mind is compromised by raging hormones, an abusive "partner", etc, there are possible factors that may well lessen her moral culpability.

Such factors that may lessen the culpability of "doctors" who kill unborn children in the womb are *much* more difficult to conceive of.

Did I miss your answer to this, Peggy?

You wrote: "you are absolutely wrong about the number of abortions that occured when abortion was illegal. The number is roughly the same...Because abortion is about determination and desperation not to become a mother - abortion numbers remain virtually the same when whether abortion is legal or illegal. "

I wrote: "The idea that laws against abortion don't seriously curb the numbers of abortions is preposterous on the face of it. You're wildly extrapolating and treating your extrapolations as facts. They're not.

Here's an interesting article with other stats on abortion before and after Roe. Slightly different angle than yours, I think: http://www.grtl.org/docs/roevwade.pdf "

And from that article, here's the key section:

"Pro-abortionists grossly exaggerate the number of illegal abortions and deaths before Roe vs. Wade. One of the major ongoing lines of defense offered to keep abortion- on-demand legal is to insist that the Roe decision did not result in an increase in abortion:

that the same number of abortions is now done legally which were formerly done illegally. Significantly, however, the minute they are asked for data to back up their charges, in their typical "hit and run" debating style, they rush off to another topic. An all-too-common example of this mode of attack appeared in an article by Suzanne Gordon in the April 4, 1989 Washington Post Health Magazine. She stated, "more than 1.2 million women are estimated to have had illegal abortions each year before Roe v. Wade, and approximately 5,000 died annually as a result."

Obviously, no official record of the number of illegal abortions exists. Pro-abortion public relations firms may make such estimates of more than 1 million illegal abortions and 5,000 deaths annually. But anyone who looks at the actual figures of abortions after 1973 and the number of all pregnancy-related maternal deaths before 1973 would disagree. These statistics prove that the pro-abortion estimates have no basis in either fact or logic.

During 1973, after the Supreme Court had legalized abortion-on-demand nationwide in January of that year, 744,600 abortions were done (according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, which surveys abortion providers and compiles abortion statistics). If abortion supporters want to claim that more than 1.2 million illegal abortions took place before 1973, then they must also explain why the legalization of abortion caused an immediate drop of more than 450,000 in the number of abortions!

The number of legal abortions did not reach 1 million until 1975, the third year of legalization. It was not until 1977 - four years after Roe v. Wade and with 2,688 abortion providers in operation - that the number exceeded 1.2 million, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The total number of legal abortions today is more than 1.3 million per year."

Are you out on the message boards pushing for decriminalization of drugs, stealing, child abuse and murder? Aren't people going to do them anyway because they feel compelled by dire circumstances? Laws would curb the behavior?

And Peggy, I missed this one. You wrote to MikeWF: "when you compare an un-viable fetus with a woman in a coma or an elderly person, you are comparing apples and organges because those persons you cite are already born human beings and have personhood rights. There is absolutley no basis in fact for that comparison."

Simply saying there's no comparison doesn't make it so, Peggy. Your reasoning is circular. You start off from the false assumption that human life begins at birth and so you inevitably arrive at the conclusion that an unborn child is fundamentally different than a post-birth human.

The biological facts are contrary. We are human beings from the moment of conception.

And, not to digress to much, but should we assume, Peggy, that you are against abortions of unborn children who can currently survive outside the womb? Can we read your potent articles defending children "post-viability"? I would love to read them.

A child, in utero, is alive. Barring an accident, sickness or the intentional taking of her innocent life, she will continue to live outside the womb and develop throughout her lifetime (even through an often contemptible period known as 'adolescence'). The womb is quite analogous to a person on a feeding tube and respirator. Both are dependent on others for continued survival.

So, by all means, please explain to us philosophically and biologically, what makes these two cases fundamentally different. So far, your distinctions are arbitrary - emanating from location (in the womb or not) rather than ontogeny (fundamental identity as a living human being).

MikeWF - What your church teaches has little meaning because it is based on the existence of a creature they claim to have infallible knowledge of, and yet, there is not one single tiny shred of verifiable EVIDENCE that any such creature exits, or has EVER existed. To assume that what you are stating has any truth value, in the face of its nebulous origins, is beyond belief and can only reflect negatively on you, due to its delusional and superstitiously derived foundations. Your statement of when life begins, and mine, are both statements of opinion. Yours is based on the sacred nature you have assigned it by subscription to totally unsupportable religious dogma, and mine is based on the self-awareness principle and the needs of society to deal pragmatically with the real problems that face us as we try to cope with them in an ever more complicated world. Until you can prove your god creature exists and that its nature is exactly as you claim, then any argument you make utilizing church dogma and doctrine, are valueless.

Robert,
You have been trying to force this god creature into the open and to no avail--you will have Paula, most idiotically, tell you even as she stands rooted to the ground, and even as she sees images of astronauts in space float around, that there is no proof gravity actually exists, yet we believe in gravity, so why not do the same with God and this same woman will talk about circular logic while taking on Peggy. Her logic is an ellipse around her own confused brain. You are arguing theologians here. These are the ones who kiss the hems of the garments of pedophiles in the church, they submit themselves to catechisms, they want public policy to hew to the precepts of a book they think was handed down by a god from a burning bush and they will try to show, until the cows come home, that a blastocyst is a whole person--this is cause celebre for those devoted to the delusional creature you speak of. If we listen to them, we will have Christian Sharia across the land and we will all be awaiting the second coming breathlessly until the universe folds upon itself. And do not be surprised if MikeWF is a reincarnation of Pattycakes. The religious sound so much alike, it is eerie. Ravensfan Anon

MikeWF:

You conveniently ignored this part of my post. Don't ignore it.

Ruth Barnett (The Abortionist: A Woman Against the Law, Rickie Solinger 1994) provided safe but illegal abortions pre-?Roe. She performed 40,000 abortions between 1918 and 1968. Now let's do some math. That would be an average of 800 per year. It would take only 1,250 additional illegal abortion providers and midwives across the US during those years to reach a total of 1,000,000. Feasible? YOU BET

Read these books: When Abortion Was A Crime, Leslie J. Reagan, 1997 and Doctor's of Conscience by Carol Joffe, 1995. From them we learn about:
Dr. Josephine Gabler who did 18,000 abortions - an average of 2,000 a year between 1932-1941 in Chicago. If there were 499 other providers/midwives across the country doing a minimum of 2,000 a year the number would be 1,000,000.

Dr. Edgar Bass Keemer, Jr. He performed over 30,000 abortions in the next 35 years. That was an average of 858 abortions per years. It would have taken only 1,165 additional abortion providers/midwives across the country to reach 1,000,000.

The Jane Service chronicled in the book of the same title, a group of women doing abortions in Chicago, 1969-1973 did 11,000 safe illegal abortions and many were 2nd trimester. That's an average of 2,750 abortions a year. It would have taken only 364 additinal abortion providers/midwives across the country performing 2,750 a year to reach 1,000,000.

Because abortion is about determination and desperation not to become a mother - abortion numbers remain virtually the same when whether abortion is legal or illegal.

Roe didn't result in more abortions but because it came up from out of the underground we can obviously track numbers better than we could while in the pre-Roe years. DEAL WITH the ancetodal information. It is fact and can't be ingored and blows your argument right out of the water.

Second, laws are meant to punish the behavior not deter the bahavior. In spite of the law the things you listed still occur. You can of course punish women and abortion providers with jail and the death penalty but you won't anymore deter the behavior than with those things you mentioned. By the Way have we yet won the war on drugs?! Of course not because the laws haven't detered the behavior they've just punished those who got caught.

I support Roe which means that in the 3rd trimester after viability states may step in to protect fetal life and I would support a state doing just that with exceptions for the health and life of the woman.

An already human being with personhood rights trumps the life of the UNVIABLE human life in the womb without, and correctly so, personhood rights every time. Period. An already born human being on life support is very different than an unviable fetus in the womb and I think you are smart enough to understand that. It's not just being inside or outside of the uterus that makes the two cases very different but it is the point of viability for a fetus as well as that FACT that born human beings have personhood status in the law. Prior to viability women make the decision about continuing the pregnancy or not because their right to life and liberty trumps that of the unviable fetus. After viability only the threat of harming the woman's heatlh or life can trump that of the fetus.

WHY are exceptions made, even by so-called pro-lifers for the life of the woman? BECAUSE her life - that of an ALREADY born human being trumps and will always trump that of a fetus. That being the case then prior to viability absolutely an already born woman's right to life and liberty trump that of a fetus. Period. To remove that common sense understanding then NO law criminalizing abortion could EVER make an exception for the health OR life of the woman.

By the way, IF abortion IS murder, it is so under all circumstances, INCLUDING to save a woman's life.

Finally, the "Before I knew you in the womb..." quote is out of context. Abortion is not under discussion in that verse and neither is personhood. It was a reference to choosing him as a prophet nothing more and nothing less. Second, square your reasoning with the evidence from Gen. and Exodus I presented. Everything you present is meaningless unless you can square it all with my arguments.

Finally, there is a very big difference in the Christian Church and the Catholic Church between God's teaching and the "Church"s doctrine. I know both types of Christians fudge that line on a regular basis to satisfy their own agenda. Which may be why you can't answer my arguments point by point.

Peggy

Peggy - They will also not count all the abortions performed in hospitals prior to its legalization, that were swept under the table because they were conned into performing them. All a woman had to do was show up at the emergency room with a chicken embryo at the right stage of development, claim she passed it and they would do an immediate D&C, effectively performing an abortion. The hospital, of course, would not admit what happened once they figured it out, but it occurred quite often, especially in college towns.

Ravensfan Anon - I keep wondering why their heads don't explode every time you catch them spinning their twisted rationales for believing the monumental pile of crap they have been spoon-fed by their religion, into something they have the gall to call ultimate truth.

OH dear Robert! lol you appear to have your hands full! Your illogicality and tired old name- calling is beginning to erode whatever is left of your "argument". You are trying desperately to make this an issue of dogma. It's not my friend. It's real, tangible, secular science and stats. You are in denial of when a life starts because you haven't opened you eyes or your mind. Goodness doesn't condone the obstruction of a developing human being. "Goodness" is not an exclusive religious concept, and since you are a "good-natured" person, you will only be able to fool yourself for so long.


Peggy - As you mention, this could be very intricate as per the litigation and structure of a law classifying abortion for what it is. But would it actually be so? There are, as you know, varying degrees of murder and penalties according to the crimes. There are a lot of different crimes. Not everyone and their accomplice heads to the electric chair or to jail for that matter. You extrapolate your numbers to suite your argument and it fools no one who would bother to do the research.
Murder is a crime and you speak as if -- in the case of abortion being a recognized crime -- every mother in the world would consider aborting her child and thereby put herself and the doctor in an "imposing legal situation". Not exactly. Most woman bring their babies to term. Most woman do not consider aborting. Of course, if abortion is illegal, there will be some woman pondering "breaking the law" and doctors who assist will be in it as well. This is obvious. It's like shaking your head while stating "You can't shoot people with guns because it's the law" while reading an article of a gunshot homicide in a newspaper; you are going to have people break the law.
"If I'm an illegal abortion provider and the woman isn't charged and punsihed along with me, I would sue on the grounds that I wasn't being treated equally under the law."
"And don't ignore the common sense involved in the consequences of calling abortion murder."
- Peggy

You almost answered your own question Peggy. Common sense. If abortion is a crime. Don't commit a crime. Common sense. Woman are not stupid are they? Doctors are not stupid are they? Again, we need to educate people on what is actually happening here. If abortion is an option -- as Paula pointed out before and after Roe vs Wade -- people see this procedure as an option and will sometimes opt for it. If abortion is illegal, it will bring the value of the human being back into the equation. Maybe more will understand and think twice before forfeiting themselves to the brainwashing of the abortion movement and the "easy way out". When this is established, we will begin the healing process. Life is first and foremost. Mothers will know the seriousness of their decisions. The distraught mothers-to-be who are scared and confused will have an unobstructed view of their TRUE options, without the burden and temptation of an abortion procedure. She will need not worry about the horrible price of a false "convenience". Physically, emotionally, spiritually. Abortion propaganda will be replaced with compassion, understanding, and communal support from friends, family, individuals and caring organizations. This would be a true "culture of life". Freedom in it's truest sense.

Peg Loonan ^^

"Because abortion is about determination and desperation not to become a mother - abortion numbers remain virtually the same when whether abortion is legal or illegal."

What does that have anything to do with the fact that abortion is taking a life? You are crazy trying to distract people with meaningless figures. Pre/post Roe? whatever! you boil down to dreck. You think you know God's intentions ? and you tell stories so your own "will be done" ? I'm no dogmatic but your almighty spouting is proof enough for me!

Wrong Peggy. "Before I knew you in the womb..." refers to the fact God is God. All knowing, all seeing, all encompasing. Transgressing time and space. We cannot even concieve such grandeur. Only try. He 100% knew us each and everyone before we were brought into this world. He had us in the plan from day "0".

By denying this, you are putting constraints on the nature of God, therefore you are disregarding His infinitely divine power and putting personal taste ahead of true scriptural understanding.

To MikeWF --

You were right. Smack on. LOL

Nicely done!

God bless you.

Best to you, too, Ms. Loonan. You may continue on now telling the world how God is fine with killing unborn babies. You are certainly energetic in that endeavor.

:-)

Oh, I forgot. Before I go - I'm still looking forward to finding that wonderful article where you vigorously defend the right of "post-viable" unborn children to exist and not be destroyed in their mother's wombs, Peggy. I'm sure it's a powerful piece, considering how strident you are here making that crucial distinction between pre and post-viability! Or, if you haven't written it already, I'm sure it's at the very top -top of your agenda. Please do let us know when it's published.

;-)

Pax Christi to all!

Fake Anonymous - Your god is the reduction of all that is illogical to the simplest possible non-answer. Until you can produce this creature and prove that its nature is exactly as you claim, the entire concept is rubbish.

pattycakes - Normally I don't find much of what you say to be worthy of response, but your continual claim of "name-calling" is getting ridiculous. You have no valid supportable argument, so you resort to a frivolous claim, that if repeated often enough (as most lies do) can gain acceptance as truth. It is an old and very transparent tactic, used only by those desperate to win an argument, when they are holding a bad hand. Your hand is intellectually very weak and you know it.

Bless your littel heart Robert.

Robert - I believe the feeling is mutual lol. However I have faith you are a fair, logical person so I will continue to address you. You, on the other hand, are so stuck in your dogmas that you BELIEVE there is no point in putting forth a semi-rational, objective rebuttal. You know why Robert? Because you know logic and reasoning are non existent in your diatribes. I am still awaiting -- as I'm sure Ravensfan and the like are waiting -- for you to put up ANY credible, substantial, unbiased sentence together. Communicating with you is like trying to explain why it is illogical to play football on a busy street to a 9 year old; He doesn't think so... he can do anything he wants, football rules!, cars will stop for him and his crew and he will stay safe out there!... until he gets hit by a car and the "I told you so..." starts up. But I have faith in you Robert -- just as a father/mother has faith their 9yr old will see the reasoning in staying off the busy street -- you have potential my friend. One day you will be opened to the simple logic of the truth. For now, just keep your head up buddy.
OK! For starters... When does human life begin?

The controversy swirling about the first question can be explained by the fact that different people use different standards of measurement by which to define "human life." Some would define it through a theologic or religious faith belief. Some would define "human life" using certain philosophic theories and beliefs. Others define "human life" by using biologic, scientific facts. Let us briefly explore the three methods of measurement.
This is best explained by considering three people who might state their respective beliefs as follows:
a) I believe in God. I believe He creates a soul. I believe the soul is created at conception. Therefore, I believe that human Life begins at conception.
b) I also believe in God and a soul but I don’t believe the soul is created until birth (or some other time). Therefore, I believe that human life begins at birth (or some other time).
c) I don’t believe in God or a soul.
NOTE THAT...
- The above are statements of religious faith or its absence.
- None of the above religious faith beliefs can be FACTUALLY PROVEN (Hi Robert! :)
- Each individual has a right to his or her own religious beliefs (Hi Robert! :).
Human life can be defined by using a wide variety of philosophic beliefs and theories. These use social or psychological rationale which can involve biologic mileposts. Examples of philosophic definitions of when human life begins include the following: When there is consciousness; when there is movement; when there is brain function, or a heartbeat; when viable; at birth; when wanted; when there has been an exchange of love; when "humanized"; when this is a person (how-ever "person" is defined); if mentally or physically normal, etc. While admittedly arrived at through a certain reasoning process, all of the above remain theories. NONE can be PROVEN FACTUALLY BY SCIENCE.
Defining life by BIOLOGICAL terms and measurements is the only UNIVERSALLY accepted means by which we may conclude (Peggy, this is the FIRST thing we must establish).
The question of when human life begins is a scientific question. Therefore, we should look to scientific facts rather than philosophic theories or religious beliefs for the answer. We must conclude then that each individual human life begins at the beginning, at fertilization, and that human life is a continuum from that time until death.
Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual’s life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." This is so be-cause this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing.

Is this being alive? Yes. He has the characteristics of life. That is, he can reproduce his own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity and function. Or more simply, he is not dead.

Is this being human? Yes. This is a unique being, distinguishable totally from any other living organism, completely human in all of his or her characteristics, including the 46 human chromosomes, and can develop only into a fully mature human.

Is this being complete? Yes. Nothing new will be added from the time of union of sperm and egg until the death of the old man or woman except growth and development of what is already there at the beginning. All he needs is time to develop and mature.

Again...
- The above is not a religious faith belief.
- The above is not a philosophic theory.
- The above is not debatable, not questioned. It is a universally accepted scientific fact.

Even if a person did doubt the presence of actual human life in the uterus at a particular time, what would be the fully human way to go? Perhaps a guide would be how we have always treated other human life when there has been a doubt that it exists. Would we not resolve a doubt in favor of life? We do not bury those who are doubtfully dead. We work frantically to help rescue entombed miners, a child lost in the mountains, or a person under a collapsed building. Does a hunter shoot until he knows that it is a deer and not another man? We suggest that the truly human way of thinking would be to give life the benefit of the doubt.
This part is for you Peggy...
The charter of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, is guiding here. "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The first right is "life," for without it there are no other rights. The ethical principle is that there is a hierarchy of rights, but that the right to life itself is supreme. There is a right to free speech, but not to shout "fire" in a theater. A man has a right to swing his fist, but that right stops at your nose. We all have the right to the pursuit of happiness, but we cannot achieve it by discriminating against, stealing from, injuring or killing others. Laws enforcing civil rights are of this nature. Every government has the right and duty to protect the lives of all living humans in that nation regardless of degree of dependency, degree of perfection, age, sex, or place of residence (living in or out of the womb). This protection should be guaranteed by its Constitution and should be enforced through due process of law.
The alternative to this is to allow, legislate or adjudicate a system in which there is discrimination against certain classes of living humans. In the case of abortion there is discrimination against an entire class of living humans, on the basis of age (too young) and place of residence (still living in the womb). Such laws created by the U.S. Supreme Court and by other nations’ Parliaments have granted to one living human (the woman) the legal right to kill another (her developing baby) in order to solve her own personal social problem. Should this fatal discrimination against an entire class of living humans continue? That is a question still before each nation, and one that will simply not go away. A civilization will ultimately be judged by how it treats the smallest, the most dependent, the most innocent among its members. Did that nation cherish, protect, love and nourish them — or kill them?

It should be obvious to everyone that there are two living humans involved: the unborn child and his mother. For this nation to once again protect its unborn babies, but not to do everything humanly possible to help the mother would be immoral. The woman with a problem pregnancy must, at the same time, be offered aid in solving her problems, to help her through that distressing time.
If in fact, her very life is threatened physically, then, the ideal is to save both. But if, in treating her, the fetal baby is lost, such may be an unfortunate result. Authors have traveled nationally for 30 years lecturing on this subject, and we have yet to hear of a directly induced abortion needed to prevent her death. There are, of course, good reasons to deliver the baby and end her pregnancy in its late months, but here hopefully the baby is saved. NEVER in late pregnancy is it necessary to directly kill the baby by abortion. If her problem is something less than a threat to her life itself, then we cannot solve it by the ghastly violence of killing another innocent human life. The solutions for helping any individual woman are often many and complex, but they must be found and they must be used.  

So Peggy, Having said this... Your stats are meaningless insofar as they propose only a snapshot of violent behavior in our modern era by the differential for "Pre Roe" and "Post Roe". Our current society has only to ACKNOWLEDGE science and the living creation within the mother to make any real difference in the contiguous United States/Canada, and beyond.

Just to humor you though...

In the early 1800s it was discovered that human life did not begin when she "felt life," but rather at fertilization. As a direct result of this, the British Parliament in 1869 passed the "Offenses Against the Persons Act," eliminating the above bifid punishment and dropping the felony punishment back to fertilization. One by one, across the middle years of the 19th century, every then-present state passed its own law against abortion. By 1860, 85% of the population lived in states which had prohibited abortion with new laws. These laws, preceding and following the British example, moved the felony punishment from quickening back to conception.

Abortionists, if convicted, were sent to jail for varying lengths of time. There is no record of any having been executed.
The definitive study on this gives the LIE to Planned Parenthood’s ads which claimed: "If you had a miscarriage you could be prosecuted for murder."
Studying two hundred years of legal history, the American Center for Bioethics concluded: "No evidence was found to support the proposition that women were prosecuted for undergoing or soliciting abortions. The charge that spontaneous miscarriages could result in criminal prosecution is similarly INSUPPORTABLE.

There are no documented instances of prosecution of such women for murder or for any other species of homicide; nor is there evidence that states that had provisions enabling them to prosecute women for procuring abortions ever applied those laws. The vast majority of the courts were reluctant to implicate women, even in a secondary fashion, through complicity and conspiracy charges. Even in those rare instances where an abortionist persuaded the court to recognize the woman as his accomplice, charges were not filed against her. In short, women were not prosecuted for abortions. Abortionists were. The charges of Planned Parenthood and other "pro-choice" proponents are without factual basis. Given the American legal system’s reliance on precedent, it is unlikely that enforcement of future criminal sanctions on abortion would deviate substantially from past enforcement patterns." (Women and Abortion, Prospects of Criminal Charges Monograph, American Center for Bioethics, 422 C St., NE, Washington, DC 20002, Spring 1983)

I'm Out :) Peace

P.S. Peggy ,

Roe vs Wade was instituted FROM THE TOP DOWN.

Do some research on the approval rates for abortion in the US before Roe. Pretty interesting if you ask me.

Pattycakes, you are a fantastic fantasist, full of the crap you have condemned others of possessing--this utopia you see developing, as soon as abortion becomes illegal, exists only in your imagination--the whole world joining hands to support all mothers to be. Are you in this circle right now--if you were you wouldn't be here arguing with Robert and Peggy--you would be out in the unseemly gutters of life saving unwanted babies. Under Sharia, to have sex with a man before marriage is a crime and women are stoned to death for this. Under Sharia, to kiss a man in public is a crime for a woman, and worse if a man does it to another man. Under Sharia adultery is a crime for a woman and again she can be stoned to death for this--pattycakes they'll love you in Saudi Arabia--you should move there with MikeWF, Paula and the Pope. Control of someone else's reproductive system and sexual mores fits right in with your dogmas--and dogmas they are pattycakes, despite your sugarcoating them as secular concepts--You can all make one happy family and rule the world with the Christian Sharia as your "tablet of Hammurabi". Your Catholic gobbledygook holds no water. The Catholic Church is dichotomous--condemn homosexuality but be a magnet for the very homosexuals you condemn, clamor that all life is precious but rape a few boys and girls here and there until the rosary beads fall limp from the hands, say the church is above the terrestrial but intervene perniciously in all things material to impose the church's values on others (even as many within the church flout these precepts themselves) the inconsistencies are too numerous to count--you don't see any of this--all you see are roses and daisies--the Catholic Church as the lifeblood of things great and small. Not very intelligent Pattycakes--there is not an ounce of the secular in you--so don't try to fool the secular with "all life is sacred from day one of conception" argument--you are motivated by one thing only--you are a slave to the religious concepts espoused by the Catholic Church--like I said you kiss the hems of the garments of the hypocrites in this church and you would impose theological rule across America--not any old theology, Catholic theology would be the only one to cut it and you have the unmitigated gall to hark on secular concepts as supporting documents for your religious rhapsodies. Give me a break--put it to rest--when you become a Supreme Court judge break Roe versus Wade to splinters but for now it is the law of the land--abortion is legal and even if it were to become illegal--the only women who will not be able to get it are the poor ones and the church has strangled them all across the globe--in Latin America, in Africa, in India and most of all in Ireland where the muck about this church is seeping out and the stench is redolent across the Irish sea. You don't have a secular leg to stand on Pattycakes and don't pretend you do, using the disingenuous language of the church whose clergy has vacillated from being flat earthers to geneticists depending on mood, politics and convenience.
Ravensfan Anon

pattycakes - It is not the volume of what you fling, it is the quality that counts, and that is what is missing from your delusional diatribe above. When you pretend to understand the concepts of reason and logic, because there is nothing reasonable or logical about delusional superstitionism (aka religion), you are just making a fool of yourself. Anon, above, has pretty much covered what needs to be said in rebuttal to you and my offering would only be like the pile on after the tackle has already been made. You are duplicitous in your assertions and you will find that trying to walk the scientific side and the fanatic Cathoholic side of the track at the same time is impossible.

You might find it interesting though, that in 1970, when New York State made abortion legal (3 years before Roe v. Wade), the Catholic Church did not put up a big stink, until they realized that Catholics were having them at the same rate as everyone else. Evidently, they were not so upset about it as long as it would reduce the number of non-Catholics and in doing so increase their numbers relative to everyone else. This, of course, failed and they went full bore into the repression mode that has only gotten worse since. You might as well give it up though, because there are an awful lot of us who will rise to fight your kind (violently if necessary) if your kind are successful in destroying our Constitution, by turning us into a theocratic state.

First, Pattycakes - Read the books about Illegal abortion I previously cited then talk to me about pre-Roe days. You don't have a clue about which you are trying to speak about. Women were held criminally liable - often used against them to testify against the abortionist. That's the problem with trying to have a discussion with you people. You spout off about things you have no real knowledge of and you spout off without evidence or proof. I didn't see a cite for evidence that proves women weren't held legally responsible.

SECOND, YOUR side claims abortion is murder and in our society and legal system there are legal consequences to murder. Just because you only want to pin such on a dr. doesn't mean that women can be let off the legal hook for murder or solicitation. You simply can't make such a case and maintain that abortion is murder and whats more you people get that which is why you try harder than ever to dance around it. IF ABORTION IS MURDER it means that women must be equally legally liable for that crime. Period.

And as it regards the number of abortions pre-Roe and post-Roe you missed the point or simply can't deal with the truth at hand. THE POINT is that all the talk of making abortion illegal and it'll just go away is ludicrious and has NO baisis in fact. Not from our own history or what's going on in other countries today. Look the latter up as well. Put illegal abortion and Asia, Africa, S.America into a seach engine. That is if truth is really what you seek.

There's a better way to reduce the number of abortions: 1. Abstinence-based comprehensive sex ed NOT abstinence-only 2. More birth control research. Depro Prevera, Norplant and the female condom all developed outside of this country because of nuts like you. 3. Better birth control availability - how about health insurance companines covering female hormonal birth control and NOT Viagra. 4. Men and Condoms. Condoms are 98% effective in preventing pregnancy when used consistently and correctly so if every man wore a condom every time he had sex and didn't want to be a father, married or not - GUESS HOW MANY abortions we wouldn't have!! This way means women's lives aren't at risk in a secret underground of abortion where of course NO BABY gets saved!

Also as for no dr being executed - that may be but if illegal again who'd bet against Texas executing a dr. or two!

As to the right to life in the constitution. A born woman has a right to life. There are two ways in which we as a nation can handle abortion - legal or illegal. NEITHER protects the right to life you see for a fetus and illegal doesn't protect the right to life of the woman. Legal abortion protects a woman's right to life AND then employing abortion reduction strategies will prevent the need for abortion.

WHAT PART of this logic do you people not get? There is personal and religious beliefs about abortion which you are free to espouse to any and all who will listen to you but then there is the public policy side and when a group of people ignore common sense public policy solutions they are nothing more than fanatics. I get what you think about fetal life in the womb what you don't get is that there is a way we can all come together to reduce the need for abortion without harming a woman's life - life you only pretend to care about - if you'd only let some common sense into those fanatical brains of yours.

Your notion that God condemns abortion has yet to be proven while I've proved otherwise. My arguments stand prima facie because you can't disprove them. You haven't gone point by point to disprove them, they stand prima facie.

The discussion here has been interesting but as always when dealing with fanatics the impasse becomes redundent.

Thanks for the discussion.

Peggy

"The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual’s life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." This is so be-cause this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing."

The above by Pattycakes--not true. This fertilized ovum is just that--not sexed--you need the elaboration of the proper hormones, you need the H-Y antigen, you need the regression of the mullerian ducts, you need the mullerian inhibition factor, you need the development of the Wolffian ducts for a male to develop. You need the absence of H-Y antigen, you need the absence of mullerian inhibition and the further development of the mullerian ducts for a female to develop. None of this happens at conception. At any point in time of development a true hemaphrodite could emerge after fertilization. There are many, many fetuses that are not "growing" as Pattycakes imagines all fetuses to be doing from the time of conception. These are small for gestational age babies. Mother drinks and takes drugs--fetus does not grow. Mother has diabetes and does not control it --fetus has malformations galore. All these kill the fetus too. Criminal? What do we do then? Arrest the mothers for behaviors dangerous to the fetus? Fine them? Who will be the enforcers? Pattycakes, Paula with a truncheon, MikeWF with apple pie sloshing in his belly, Catholic Catechisms waving in his hands or perhaps some imported Taliban?

"Is this being alive? Yes. He has the characteristics of life. That is, he can reproduce his own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity and function. Or more simply, he is not dead"--Pattycakes

Not true--"he" cannot reproduce "his" own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity and function--"he" needs the placenta, "he" needs the good health of the mother, "he" needs the mother to provide him with nutrition--"he" can do nothing without the mother--"he" needs the mother's womb to survive. No great modern doc can scoop "him" out alive at this stage to help him multiply and mature. Most importantly this zygote is neither a "he" nor a "she" at this stage--merely an "it".

Is this being human? Yes. This is a unique being, distinguishable totally from any other living organism, completely human in all of his or her characteristics, including the 46 human chromosomes, and can develop only into a fully mature human.

Complete rubbish as put forth by pattycakes. We are an amalgam of nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA, many different organelles and human endogenous retroviruses--also called HERVs--the last are similar to the AIDS virus--hostile RNA strands that have been invading us since time immemorial. They have become part and parcel of our DNA and continue to do so to date--there is nothing immutable about a human--we are changed all the time by the viruses that invade us transplacentally. In fact the syncitial layer of the placenta, the layer that suppresses the immune system of the mother from rejecting the fetus, is a creation of a human endogenous retrovirus--these viruses become a cunning part of our own DNA--they can cause deletions, duplications and large frame shifts in our genes and our chromosomes--they can cause the rapid or the slow evolution of humans into entirely different creatures from what they once were--they can cause diseases like cancer or autoimmune
disorders, they can incite the formation of new organelles in cells, they can integrate themselves into the function of human cells--our mitochondria are remnants of human endogenous retroviruses. To make the blanket statement that a fertilized human ovum is unique from the time of creation and its ultimate destiny is to multiply and divide into a full grown identifiable human is a piece of idiocy like none other and can only be the province of theologians.

To summarize there is nothing unique about us and nothing unchangeable--we are altered everyday, imperceptibly but also profoundly, by RNA strands called viruses, they sow within us our destruction, we host them, live with them in symbiosis and mutualism, even though they invade us to parasitize us, we incorporate them into ourselves, they alter our uniqueness, rearrange us, waste us, kill us and evolve us--they are abortionists par excellence--smart, they don't care one damn whit about Pattycakes or his blabs.

"Is this being human? Yes. This is a unique being, distinguishable totally from any other living organism, completely human in all of his or her characteristics, including the 46 human chromosomes, and can develop only into a fully mature human"--Pattycakes

Distinguishable totally from any other living organism since conception--not true--hormones not there, cerebral cortex folds not there--it is these cerebral cortex folds that make humans humans--and how did we get these larger more complex brains? The HAR1 gene is responsible for this process and the HAR1 gene acts in concert with early neuronal cells called Cajal Retzius neurons and a protein called Reelin to make our brains different from that of the apes--this whole change does not occur until mid gestation--is not complete until 26 weeks of gestation and there is nothing at all written in stone or predestined that once conception occurs, progression to the formation of the complex human cerebral cortex, will be orderly or inevitable, without the "rude" intervention of abortion. From anencephaly to microcephaly, the "God creature" is a very busy abortionist--of course the religious give him carte blanch to destroy what he has "created"--the mother does not have the same rights--she has to subjugate herself to this God myth because the myth is true for Pattycakes, Paula and Mike the Apple Pie WF.

The numerous scoldings MikeWF quotes from the catechisms to the Bible-- women being condemned by moral cops from ancient times-- show clearly that it was not just after Roe versus Wade abortions became more common--abortions were always around--AND QUITE COMMONLY SO--women have been trying to break the stranglehold of religion and of men who came and went, placing the responsibility for contraception on them-- men who raped, coerced and bludgeoned their way into their wombs--women have tried to break loose for centuries-- abortion was one way out of a world made by men to dominate women-- you want to blame the doctors who do the abortions and the women who consent to these abortions--where's your damn shame? Get hold of the guys who don't wear their condoms, the ones who also create the children--call them murderers, ask them to save their children, take them in, caress them, feed them and raise them--leave the women alone to tend to their bodies as they wish, at least until the time the Cajal Retzius cells get active to insert the human brain, with all its complex folds and connections, into a fertilized ovum.
Ravensfan Anon

Ravensfan Anon - Nicely stated, but to the likes of those you addressed, it will make little difference. The delusional believer (Proto-Humans, to those already evolved beyond them) will respond with more incantations and quotes from their buy-bull, in a self-righteous defense of the absurd. You do make them squirm though, which is most entertaining to watch.

Back at it again huh boys? Hope you enjoyed the weekend!
As per your last response Rfan Anon, it was quite fascinating! Breathtaking I might ad; you whisk the reader away into the biological abyss of the human being. Unique? yes. Human? yes. Complete? yes. Well done my friend.

Speaking of complete, you did of course, reference my third fact that:

"...Nothing new will be added from the time of union of sperm and egg until the death of the old man or woman except GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT of what is ALREADY THERE at the beginning. ALL HE NEEDS IS TIME TO DEVELOPE AND MATURE."

Keeping it really frank, what you have done in your rebuttal is vaguely describe some of the biological developments which take place in early formation -- which I have accounted for -- in an attempt to override the fact that this is common sense. You lost me there. Are you arguing for or against conception being the genesis of human life? Mom drinks Pepsi, mom does drugs, mom eats Thai food, mom smokes cancer-sticks, mom listens to "Baby Mozart"; while some of these may factor in the developmental process of the zygote going forward (leading to handicaps, malformations, etc,etc,etc), you have missed or completely ignored the point:

If you LET a human develop, it HAS the most chemically fundamental and biologically basic means by which to grow into an "conscious, intellectual being". All of this is UNIQUE inside a female HUMAN being as per each pregnancy, respectively. Your mama wasn't a lama Rfan Anon; No chimp on the face of the planet will give birth to a Robert Littel (although sometimes I think he wishes this will happen one day); hamsters will never get together to discuss astrophysics. Human development is unique.

"Not true--"he" cannot reproduce "his" own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity and function--"he" needs the placenta, "he" needs the good health of the mother, "he" needs the mother to provide him with nutrition--"he" can do nothing without the mother--"he" needs the mother's womb to survive. No great modern doc can scoop "him" out alive at this stage to help him multiply and mature. Most importantly this zygote is neither a "he" nor a "she" at this stage--merely an "it"."
- RFan Anon

You have laid your common sense bare Rfan Anon; you have officially acknowledged -- albeit perhaps mistakenly -- that this young creation is indeed dependent on the mother to be nurtured and developed. By addressing this, you show your understanding of a MATERNAL relationship. By recognizing the dependency you have thereby also recognized the INDEPENDENCE of the new creation; nothing can be interdependent of something from which it is not unique or "apart from". From the moment of conception, this little life IS indeed dependent on the mother to safely develop ON HIS/HER OWN as a unique human entity. The fertilization event between two haploid cells -- an ovum from a mother and a sperm cell from a father -- which combine to form the single diploid cell. Such zygotes contain DNA derived from both the mother and the father, and this provides all the GENETIC INFORMATION necessary to form a new individual.

GENETIC INFO Rfan Anon; pure, predetermined genetic information. How else does anyone start? The processes you triumphantly aforementioned have been orchestrated. Cellular function at it's finest. The DNA is there from day 1, and the "instruction manual" is there to boot. Girl/Boy, eyes, hair, skin; information for the growth of what will become a fine specimen. Open your eyes bro.

"Most importantly this zygote is neither a "he" nor a "she" at this stage--merely an "it"."
-Rfan Anon.

Most importantly indeed! You need this to be vigorously repeated in your little head to validate your position. Since you would make a better "pro-lifer" than a "pro-deather" judging by your smarts in this area, you are only one "EUREKA" moment away from ridding yourself of the delusions holding you back from being a better person. Best of luck to you.

Some tidbits...

"At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother."
J.M. Tanner, G. R. Taylor, and the Editors of Time-Life Books, Growth, New York: Life Science Library, 1965, p.

"Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram" (EEG). H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG," JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120

"Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception."
J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564

Peggy - Thanks for your replies as well. You do put forth an interesting perspective.

Winston Churchill once said of "fanaticism";
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind, and will not change the subject."

As you appear to not want to let the notion go that you stand "prima facie" in your argument, I would propose this would be a pertinent term to describe your crusade.

The only thing "prima facie" here is that there are two lives to consider when arguing the topic of abortion. You conveniently say you hold the child in regard but trump it with the born woman's "right" to choose. That's not hard to see.

"WHAT PART of this logic do you people not get? There is personal and religious beliefs about abortion which you are free to espouse to any and all who will listen to you but then there is the public policy side and when a group of people ignore common sense public policy solutions they are nothing more than fanatics. I get what you think about fetal life in the womb what you don't get is that there is a way we can all come together to reduce the need for abortion without harming a woman's life - life you only pretend to care about - if you'd only let some common sense into those fanatical brains of yours.
- Peggy Loonan

Public Policy Solutions, as you call them, mean what exactly? Keeping everyone in their uniqueness of belief and opinion happy? A sort of "throw the dog a bone" set of processes? You are smarter then to think "keeping everyone happy" is an objective and fair paradigm? There is really not much to say in response to this first point. I think you are saying "equal rights for mother and baby, but mother's right to choose the death of the baby should be precedent over the babies right to live?" Is that correct? If it is, you have only yourself to blame if you come across as illogical and imoral.

Second, "... I get what you think about fetal life in the womb...". No you don't.

Third, "...what you don't get is that there is a way we can all come together to reduce the need for abortion without harming a woman's life". Oh Peggy, what a wonderful world that would be. I believe it is called "abstinence/sexual responsibility/marital context/moral adherence. I get that part 100%. What you subscribe to is illogicality in it's truest form. You feel that reactive measures are the way to "free" everyone by promoting condoms, contraceptives blah blah blah. Where is the logic in setting yourself up for failure Peggy? Where is the logic in putting a woman in a horrible spot to consider an abortion? Where is the logic in interrupting such a fascinating and beautifully natural process? Love the woman Peggy, come on, love the woman. Anyways, we could go in circles forever on this point, so it's best to "agree to disagree". I hope you can understand our point here because I more than understand yours on many more levels than you have acknowledged or conceived.

Finally, "Your notion that God condemns abortion has yet to be proven while I've proved otherwise. My arguments stand prima facie because you can't disprove them. You haven't gone point by point to disprove them, they stand prima facie." WOW! lol has there ever been a more irreverent, unsubstantial, claim on this page? You have "PROVED" otherwise? No you haven't, you stated your opinion. You wrote a paper on your opinion. Your opinion is prima facie because you said so by claiming to have a message from God? OUCH! cheese and crackers that is a doozie!

Well my dear, as you clearly hold the key to salvation and the power of the all-knowing, I guess I must bow to my superior. Sorry Peggy, you are the victor my friend. I wish you much success with your endeavors in helping woman make life-changing decisions. Thanks for coming out... keep me in your prayers.

I think that's all that can be said here :(

pattycakes seems to think that something 'magic' occurs at the moment a zygote is formed that transforms the one celled entity into person-hood. That is the rub, because to the rationalist, there is no magic, no mystery, no divine hand that makes that tiny entity into anything that can be called a Human being at that point.

There is nothing she/he/it can say, that is going to convince those she/he/it would repress, by the imposition of her opinion (and it is nothing but an opinion), derived from subscription to the ridiculous notion that something sacred is imparted into the zygote at that moment of formation, unless she/he/it can prove it. Nothing she/he/it has said has accomplished that task and short of dishing a soul up on a platter, or producing the creature that en-souls, she/he/it never will be able to sell her pile of bilge to the rest of us.

Robert - What you seem to ignore is that your posts are also nothing more than an opinion. In fact in the past you've presented some rather imaginative views on the subject for one who claims to be a rationalist. Unlike Pattycakes your opinions tend to be laced with personal attacks.

ravensfan - I have never once said that what I support is anything but opinion. Opinion that is not dependent on delusional and superstitiously derived rationales, but nonetheless, just my opinion. The difference is that I am not trying to hold a figurative gun to your head to force you to have an abortion, if you so choose not to, the way your side would, in-order to force a woman to breed against her will to suffer the imposition of your opinion's realities.

As always, you seem to think that any attack against what you believe is a personal attack against you, which it isn't. It is an attack against the stupidity of your argument and the silly notion that we will allow people like you to prevail in your quest to destroy the freedoms guaranteed by our secular Constitution.

This legislation is blatently anti-choice. What right has the city council, or any legislative body for that matter, have to tell people what signs they may or may not choose to post? It's clear that the politicians in Baltimore are anything but pro-choice.

It is all too simple Robert. Faith aside -- you always like to bring faith into this -- the REALITY (not a theory) but a REALITY is that these things are on-going's in a woman who is pregnant (as per our abortion discussion). These are things you may wish to delude yourself over if you choose.

1. Life develops from conception. FACT
2. This life is human BOY/GIRL. FACT
3. Ending life is a universally accepted wrong. FACT

You fear what you can't see. You can't see the developing baby. You can't see the "god creature". You can't see the "soul" or "spirit". Just as the people you label as "living in fear" you are motivated by fear more then any other emotion Robert. If Robert cannot see? Robert must rid the world of even the thought. There is fear of what consequences lay ahead if you turn out to be wrong. Only a fearful man would cast aside as "rubbish" the "pro-life" opinions and facts before trying to understand. Objectively, your school of thought is endorsing death. My arguments have been focused on life. Would you disagree? If so, I would be more than excited to listen to anything you may have to say which would suggest otherwise. All too simple Robert, all too simple.

Sorry, I could not help but quote Peggy again... THIS is priceless!

"I would also use the opportunity to FORCE them to inform parents before they hook up a minor to their ultrasound machines for the purpose of GUILTING them into not having an abortion."
- Peggy

"Forcing" and "guilting"? Such language from someone claiming to be in the right by peacefully supporting woman's rights while looking out for the baby?... Ultrasound is for INFORMATION. It so happens that you may see a BABY in there. Something Peggy does't want you to see cause you know a baby when you see one. Wouldn't want the girl to know it's a baby now would we lol.

p.s. all things being equal, why would anyone feel "guilty" from an untrasound? it's not alive, why feel guilt? why be scared to see an ultrasound? Is it a baby in there???

It is all too simple Robert. Faith aside -- you always like to bring faith into this -- the REALITY (not a theory) but a REALITY is that these things are on-going's in a woman who is pregnant (as per our abortion discussion). These are things you may wish to delude yourself over if you choose.

1. Life develops from conception. FACT
2. This life is human BOY/GIRL. FACT
3. Ending life is a universally accepted wrong. FACT

What facts, if any, have you put forth?? I know you are very opinionated that's for sure ;) You fear what you can't see. You can't see the developing baby. You can't see the "god creature". You can't see the "soul" or "spirit". Just as the people you label as "living in fear", you are motivated by fear more then any other emotion Robert. If Robert cannot see? Robert must rid the world of even the thought. There is fear of what consequences lay ahead if you turn out to be wrong. Only a fearful man would cast aside as "rubbish" the pro-life opinions and facts before trying to understand. Why? because saving lives is a good thing right? What do you say to that? Objectively, your school of thought is endorsing death. My arguments have been focused on life. Can you disagree? If so, I would be more than excited to listen to anything you may have to say which would suggest otherwise. All too simple Robert, all too simple.

pattycakes - You may believe any stupid, irrational, unsupportable pile of rubbish you wish, but when you are working full tilt to force your delusional beliefs on a populous that doesn't share them, does not choose to suffer as a result of them, and who, if you are successful, will come back at you with all claws extended, then I suggest you back off the issue. We are not about to let any delusionalists turn us into a Taliban type Christian theocratic state, living under the type of Sharia law you might impose. There is room for you in our reality, but clearly, you do not understand that there is no room for us in yours. You will have to kill us to make us obey, or get out of the way, because that is the only way you are going to win out on this issue and we will resist, vigorously.

Thanks Robert, If we were to meet at a medieval-themed amusement park, suite up in valiant armor, rush to the battle field with plastic swords, I would gladly face you in "battle" :)

No harm in that right? Unlike your comical reference -- again expressing your fear of the "religious" -- there is nothing to fear from the "life side". I am not going to change your mind, I do not wish to. I wish to inform and open up the imagination to explore all possibilities. Your a great guy Robert; animated, intelligent, opinionated. All I wish is for you to take down your "wall" of bias against wholesome reasoning (which may/may not have roots in teachings).

p.s. we could even go for one of those medieval dinners!! Mmmm! whole chickens with their heads still on... fair maidens prancing around playing harps!... Light beer in mason-jars!!!... Tis a jolly good time Robert!

Robert – I’m holding no gun either. I made a logic argument and even left the door open for abortion, against the view of my faith. I knew you’d have to bring up the breeding nonsense argument again. When did I ever say a woman should be forced to engage in sex for the purpose of creating children? That would be the only way that comment has any merit. You seem to like presenting women as animals by the use of the word breeding.

I don’t think you make personal attacks, I know you do. You’ve even acknowledged it as being ok to do so to people who believe in God as if they somehow aren’t worthy of any respect. There is nothing stupid about mine, Pattycakes or most people’s arguments. In fact other than Clay some of the most ridiculous unintelligent comments posted have been by you. At times it’s like hearing the village idiot calling others stupid.

It you who advocated removing religious freedoms from the constitution since you deem it nonsense. For you to accuse anyone else of undermining the constitution is the height of hypocrisy.

ravensfan - You and I both know where you stand and in as much as the frontal assault against abortion cannot be successfully mounted by the theocratists, they (and you) have adopted the whittling down approach. Take small steps to shrink accessibility, pile on requirements that force the poor to travel great distances and suffer waiting periods that add to the costs, or force others to interfere with notification requirements and do anything that makes it more difficult to obtain. Frame as much of the argument as you can on parental concerns, licensing restrictions, funding restrictions, or any obstruction that slows the process or makes it unavailable to as many as you can, and you can have the same effect as would be achieved by the unobtainable total ban, that would not pass constitutional muster. To put forth a "what, who me?" facade when brought to task over the matter, is just being disingenuous.

It is not surprising that you present a duplicitous front in this discussion to mask your underlying goals, one of which seems to be using innuendo and character assassination to silence those with the knowledge and the gall to point out how valueless your religious foundations and institutions actually are. In your mind, if we stand against religion ( a proven evil ) then we, in our attack of it, must therefore be attacking all believers personally as well. Makes it convenient for you to take anyone to task who has the temerity to challenge the heretofore accepted order, but if we are to get at the festering rot at the core of religion, pawns standing at the defense of the offal pit (like you) are going to have to expect to get pummeled a bit.

Robert – I’ve made no secret where I stand. I won’t disagree that some pro-life groups have taken the approach you mention. Your fallacy is you attribute the same attributes to all. There never appears to be any middle ground in your world. It sure sounds like a bigoted view to me. As a parent I’d expect to be notified before any of my underage kids had any surgical procedures not just abortion. I only have a significant issue with using abortion as a method of birth control from a legal and cost stand point. From a moral one it goes out further, but that’s not something I expect the government to legislate.

Robert you do a great job of assassinating your own character and require no help from me. I have said nothing that isn’t true or based on a previous post you’ve made. Since you have yet to make an intelligent post there is nothing for me to silence aside from an empty barrel making noise. When have you ever pointed out my religion was valueless? All you’ve ever done is you usual cry that I can’t prove it to your satisfaction. There is plenty of value in both the foundations and institutions. That is unless you consider things like the golden rule, respect for all life, and helping those in need valueless. You have never proven any evil in religion. You have proven evil in men and want to blame that on religion. You don’t get attacked for being an atheist or even thinking that those who believe are wrong or foolish. You get attacked for your arrogance and blatant disrespect for those who don’t share your dogma. The fact that a fellow atheist called you to task is proof of that. Comments like the festering pot one are what why you get taken to task. Let me repeat from my last post make an intelligent argument. Convince us poor believers why yours is the way to true enlightenment. Maybe you can come up with something I haven’t heard, I doubt it. Or you can continue to try pummeling and get it thrown back at you tenfold.

ravensfan - There is no middle ground when it comes to freedom of choice. You are either for it, or willing to, if not outlaw it, stand on the sideline and let those who would ban it have their way. You say that if your child became pregnant, you would want to be informed rather than allow her to terminate the fetus on her own. Would you allow it, would you make her carry an unwanted fetus to term, raise it for her, or make her give it away, throw her out the door, or embrace her and her child? These are all questions that run through the mind of a scared child who finds herself in an unfortunate situation that she is neither mature or financially able to handle and quite often (because of warped religious views) neither are her parents. Many turn to their families, only to be treated as a pariah and end up punished for years over a error of judgement they were too young to have been responsible for in the first place. Abortion should be the last resort to fix a mistake, or a bad judgement made at a time of weakness, but it must be there as a choice. Considering the restrictions we place on children over driving a car, or consuming alcohol, a total ban on children being allowed to have children should be considered, no matter who, or why, it might be objected to.

Religion, for all the good you ascribe to it, is an archaic institution that is used to control the actions of people for the benefit of the power structure of the church. It, for centuries , was the repository of collected knowledge, and had no problem in editing that knowledge, or discarding much of what did not support the position of the church. Once the awakening occurred, they used techniques ranging from threats all the way to torturous death to maintain their monopoly over learning, with priests often the only ones allowed to read and write. The genie got out of the bottle once the printing press made the written word cheap enough to gain its own direction and momentum that religion has been fighting a losing battle against ever since, trying to maintain doctrine and dogma that no longer serves the best interests of a world that needs fresh ideas not inhibited by the weighted anchor of institutionalized delusionalism.

I don't respect your dogma and fanciful made-up deities, I don't respect those who would take rights away from women, making them second class citizens again. I don't respect anyone who wants to use the coercive power of the state to force women to bear unwanted children, pray in public schools, or teach "Creationist" crap as science in our classrooms, and I don't respect those who defend those who do all of the above. If you can't live with that, that's just to bad. The free ride for religion is over, they are going to have to get up to speed, or get off bus.

Ladies and Gents, a fond example (^ above ^) of why it is worthwhile to be practicing a system of values, morals, and spiritual integrity (aka religion). People like Mr. Littel are one of the reasons for so much trouble in our world.

Thank you Robert, you are a wonderful reason to believe in something better...anything even, as long as it doesn't breed the person you stand for. You should be ashamed with comments like that last one.
You more then likely converted a few atheists this morning.

Brian44 - Spoken like a true defender of a status quo that cleaves to absurdities, so that they can deny reality and somehow be proud of their non-achievement. The call to consider those who challenge your deeply held misconceptions as a " a wonderful reason to believe in something better...anything even", is nothing less than a call to abrogate our true calling as a species, which is the search for actual truth, and not "anything even" to fill the void of the questions we have yet earned the right to have answered. Delusionalism (religion) is a panacea, a drug for a mind, that cannot expand beyond the limits of banality.

Robert – There is middle ground on every issue. Only extremists take the view you expressed. From a moral standpoint I’m against it. From a legal standpoint it really does hinge on when human life begins. That is unless one cares only about the rights of one person. The problem with your question is I am not now nor ever been in the situation therefore I can’t honestly say what I would do as to abortion. Since my kids know my love is unconditional they have no fear of not being accepted. While some of what you say regarding a pregnant young woman has some truth it doesn’t validate your argument. That is unless you subscribe to the notion that two wrongs make a right. If you want to ban children from having children the only way would be to ban sex. Your alternative is to allow them to make yet another bad choice in an attempt to correct the results of the first one.

I never denied that in the name of God great wrongs haven’t been committed by the Church. However, it has also done many great things as well and nothing you mention is actually supported by the Bible. The Bible is one of the most misquoted books in history and has been used to justify all sorts of reprehensible behavior. That doesn’t make the teachings wrong or bad. As I’ve said and you have yet to disprove bad messengers don’t invalidate the message. Since you can’t really attack it you do the only thing you can attack those who have used it for their own purposes rather than God’s. What fresh idea’s are you referring? I haven’t seen any atheist advance any ever.

Your last paragraph is pretty much a combination of exaggerations and lies. Its true only in your mind and perhaps some other misguided people as well. You’re trying to rationalize and find reasons to justify doing the very thing you claim religion does. Your arrogance never ceases to amaze me. Do you honestly think your rude insulting attacks cause me any concern? You might as well accept the reality that like it or not religion will always be here. All of your ranting and raving can do nothing about that.

ravensfan - The current health care debate (farce) is the perfect example to prove your contention that, "There is middle ground on every issue. Only extremists take the view you expressed", is ridiculous. The paid minions of the insurance industry are "middle roading" any meaningful reform of our totally corrupted system away from the only plan that can cover everyone, cut and manage costs, streamline the paper-work, cut down on unnecessary treatments (padding) and institute a proactive treatment program that would catch, or prevent problems that are now stumbling into emergency rooms far too late to treat cheaply, or at all, and that is the One-Payer-Plan. So effective is the "compromise" "middle of the road" tactic, that they have been able to keep the only plan that can work, totally off the table. What we will end up with out of the compromised plan being excreted at the end of the process will be with the insurance industry still in control and milking the system for all it is worth, just like it is now.

It is also the same tactic being used by religion to attack freedom of choice, by eating away at it, bit by bit, under the guise of compromise and finding the "middle ground". The extreme position is the one that denies women their right to have control over their own bodies to pay homage to curious religious notions about when life begins. To call the position that gives women this freedom extreme, while in no way diminishing your right to not have an abortion if you choose, is ridiculous. Every tactic by the Right has been designed to slowly strangle a woman's right to safe and legal abortion to the point where in some states, there is only one provider and they have to travel in from another state to avoid being hunted down at home (or in church) and shot to death (South Dakota & Mississippi to name a couple). Without a no compromise line in the sand, the tactics of the Right and religion will do to freedom of choice, the same thing being done to health care and wait till you see the line in the sand that will exist the next time that issue comes up again.

Boy, Robert,
I have been reading this rich offering and wondering when the other side will slow down--no chance. Your prediction was right--Pattycakes and Ravensfan his twin soul do not see abortion as an individual rights issue--they are, the fetal rights camp--they speak for the unborn and they will not rest until every fetus in every test tube is actually born--they believe that the ineluctable destiny of every fetus is birth--what a pile of rubbish--most fetuses are wasted pretty soon after they are conceived--this obsession with birth as a god engendered miracle will separate them from you for ever and will keep them talking at you, through you and beyond you--never to you. Wasted breath my friend. Brian44 the atheists will remain atheists long after this thread has become threadbare.
Ravensfan Anon

Ravensfan Anon - I am always amazed at the tenacity and total boneheadedness exhibited by people who believe they have a monopoly on truth based on a book written thousands of years ago by men who thought the world was flat and disease was caused by demons. Why do they insist on trying to drag us all to the shallow end of the evolutionary pool?

Robert – Your response is exactly what one would expect from an extremist. Your way is the only way and any other ideas or options are wrong or evil somehow. You actually proved my point better than I ever could with that diatribe on health care.

I do have a question. How would single payer accomplish any of your claims? No one waste more than Medicare on fraud now. The post office is hemorrhaging money. The government can’t even manage its own finances so why should anyone believe they could do it for health care. Convince me why the government doing it all would improve the situation and I’ll jump on your single payer bandwagon. Simply using your usual Ad hominem arguments and appeal to ridicule isn’t logical or rational support for your position. I agree reform is needed. I just doubt your idea is the solution.

When was the origin of life solely a religious idea? To even advance such a notion is rather foolish. Are you saying science or the law should have no interest in when life begins? Could it be you fear what might be found out by science in the future and its legal ramifications? You try and make the idea solely religious in order to avoid thinking that there is anything else involved other than choice.

Anon – You must be selectively reading my friend. My position has nothing to do with my religious beliefs or I’d never have conceded that when we know the point at which human life begins abortion should be legal up to it. It appears that Robert and now you want to keep the issue as a religious one. Why is that? Could it be so you can rationalize there is only one person with rights? To use an appeal to probability for abortion is what I would have expected from Robert. Do you agree with Robert’s narrow view that when life begins is simply a religious issue as well?

ravensfans - If you think I'm going to get involved in a discussion with you about health care, when you are just repeating insurance company created Limbaugh isms and Beck regurgitations, then you can go take a hike. It is clearly evident that be it religion, or politics, you are a defender of the status quo, no matter how foul that status quo has become. I suggest you talk with some people living in Canada and find out what a One-Payer-Plan is all about, before you condemn it. I realize that would require you to think outside the box, but it doesn't hurt half as much as you might think. You just have to get off your intellectually lazy butt, and do it.

Robert - I didn't expect you to get involved in a discussion because like any extremist you way is the only way. Anyone who even dares question your opinion is deemed as somehow delusional, evil or someone’s pawn. Instead of presenting a valid reasonable and logical argument you use ad hominem, bare assertion, appeal to ridicule and single cause fallacies to make your point. Actually Robert I’ve worked for a British company with US and Canadian affiliates and can tell you from experience it cost more than it the US and the employees in Canada got less and hated the quality and timeliness of care. I’ve also know many people in the UK who transferred here to get away from the system in the UK because they didn’t like it or the tax structure needed to maintain it. Maybe that’s changed since then. Of course you didn’t address any of my questions either. Don’t bother because I’m sure you don’t have an answer and like all your other views you’re too narrow minded to be able to consider alternatives. That’s what makes you an extremist.

ravensfan - One does not become an Atheist without going through a process that requires much examination of all the 'spiritual' anomalies, and a thorough examination of ones core beliefs, acquired beliefs before thinking about them, and all the programming shoved down one's throat by family and society. The difficult search for truth, is nothing but a, " valid reasonable and logical argument " within one's own mind that when honestly done cannot help but end up challenging the made-up, unsupportable, ILLOGOGICAL, set of beliefs, I suspect you swallowed hook line and sinker, without a second thought, as they were spoon-fed to you as a child.

As to the Canadian health system being the way you are trying to portray it, I can only assume that you have NEVER actually talked to anyone who has had to suffer the horrible indignity of having their life saved by a system that covers everyone and, had they been here, would not have been covered (even if insured) which would have resulted in their death. Two such people are my mother and stepfather, now living near Vancouver, BC. They are NOT the exception, they are the rule, so don't try to spin any Right-wing propaganda here, it won't wash.

Robert – I don’t recall questioning what your reasons for being an atheist were. The difference between us is I have no preconceived notions about you based on what you believe or don’t believe. What makes you an extremist isn’t being an atheist. What makes you an extremist is your contempt for anyone who has views which differ from yours on any topic religious or political. I can’t speak for your family or experience but nothing was shoved down my throat. My faith is based on my own personal experience. You seem to have this deluded notion that all believers are somehow the result of some sort of indoctrination and not challenged to be free thinking human beings. I can’t speak for everyone only myself and my family and our collective experiences. The only difference between us is the decision we made when looking at the issue of God. You may not want to believe that, but it is the truth.

As for the Canadian health system everything I said is based on conversations and dealings with Canadian citizens and research I did for US citizens my company relocated to Canada a few years ago. I’m glad your mother and stepfather were helped by the system. For the record I never said the current system in the US is ok the way it is. I simply questioned your solution. Since your solution isn’t among the solutions being discussed now there really isn’t a point in debating it too much. You never did actually mount any credible argument as to how it would reduce the actual cost of care. Medicare does it by simply reducing reimbursements hardly the formula for promoting the kind of care your family received. Give me the reason why it will be better than what we have or any of the current legislation being discussed in Congress without the rhetoric or personal attacks. The only one spinning anything at the moment is you.

ravensfan - You questioned my reasoning process and I gave you an example of how those processes operate to lead me to conclusions in opposition to those you seem to have picked up along the way, without ever questioning them critically, evidently.

What makes me an extremist, in your mind, is that I won't roll over face the wall and shut up, allowing you to continue to operate freely as an agent for delusionalism. Just because your absurd beliefs have gained a following, doesn't make them any more valid than those who used to rip the heart out of virgins, on pyramid altars, to placate their gods. There are clear dangers represented by the current "Ultimate Truths" that threaten freedom and could either lead us into religious wars (very dangerous in the nuclear age), or kill us all by stripping the planet clean, while they continue to try to increase their numbers relative to each other.

It is clear that your function (taken upon yourself) is to attack those who pose a threat to the established disorder represented by people willing to kill or die in the name of their silly gods. Anything said critical of religion, is deemed by you as a personal attack, not only against your church, but against you. Unfortunately (from your perspective) it is no longer acceptable to kill us heathens, heretics and blasphemers, but I have little doubt that people of your mentality, would jump at the chance to have that policy re-instituted, in a heart-beat. For now, you are going to have to just try and silence the opposition, not by proving the validity of the beliefs your side seems anxious to spread (which you cannot do), but by innuendo, character assassination, and by drawing on the lack of imagination of people who think just like you, as numerical support for institutionalized stupidity. You have my pity, but only grudgingly.

Hello Ravensfan,
You're being demolished but I know you'll be back. I do not subscribe to the theory that when life begins is a religious matter but certainly the scientists will be divided on it and the religious will never accept a scientific explanation for when this seminal event actually occurs in utero. But I have to tell you this: you don't read my postings properly. I have argued in the past, that when life actually begins is irrelevant and not a matter that will be solved. Nevertheless for all life the destination is not birth as the Catholic religion seems to argue. For many lives the end point is merely a test tube and no where after that--other lives are snuffed after the first few weeks of pregnancy. Life is wasted all the time and it is not so cataclysmic an event as the Catholic church says it is--you are no more special than the insect you crush beneath your feet casually, or the deer that is hunted down by the lion and dies clamped in his jaw. The entirety of life functions on the principle of predation and you are not going to change that. You are not just a bleeding heart for the fetus. You are also a control freak who wants to keep women down. This has been the will of the male dominated Catholic church through the centuries and you have it etched in your psyche that women should be barefoot, pregnant and serving the needs of men for the term of their existence. So you will vote to criminalize abortion and wave the banner for the unborn, even as the born suffer. You will defend this untenable situation until the cows come home and you will use the devious argument that as long as science cannot tell you when life begins then every fetus must be saved from conception on. Give me a break Ravensfan--you are a confirmed religionist masquerading as a reasonable man with a reasoned argument--
Ravensfan Anon

Anyone who wants people to stop killing kids is ok in my book.

Robert - You act as though I picked up my view on one-payer from some news show or political pundit. My views were based on actual discussions with Canadian Citizens and US Citizens who worked in Canada as well as some research on the system at the time. What I found out is that the system did a pretty good job with critical care but not as well in preventative and non-life threatening care. The tax rates were high including a tax similar to VAT at the provincial and national levels and still ran up large deficits. I never said it didn’t help any Canadians or was completely bad. That’s your extremism, all or nothing. Either someone is for you or against you with no middle ground. The one thing you still haven’t done is show how other than in one case the system will bring the actual cost of care down, extend it to all and not create fiscal problems. If you can I’ll gladly agree with you and join with you in calling for it.

What makes you an extremist isn’t that disagree with my beliefs or opinions. It’s your narrow view that all people who believe in God don’t deserve respect or your unwillingness to see middle ground on political issues like health care. It’s your narrow minded bigoted attitude that unless we are all atheist as you then we are mindless, thoughtless drones still living in the dark ages. That my friend is what makes you an extremist. The truly sad thing is that everything you said I do is exactly what you do all the time. You even presume to attribute nonsensical positions to me simply because they fit the stereotype you have of people who have faith.

You flatter yourself way to much if you think I consider you any kind of threat to my beliefs. You seem to forget that on numerous times I’ve actually defended your right to spout off your nonsense or for atheist to spread their message. It was you not I that advocated changing the constitution to remove rights so it seems a bit hypocritical for you to accuse me of trying to silence anyone. While I thank you for your pity save it for yourself as you are in far greater need of it than I.

Anon – You seem to be suffering from the same oversized ego problem as Robert. Oh well if it makes you happy to believe I’m being demolished it means nothing to me. I do agree that religions would never accept any scientific explanation that differs from their concept of when it does. Then importance I place on it is for civil law not religion. I don’t really expect their may ever even be a scientific agreement on that, at least in my lifetime. I am well aware of your argument from the past and find them without merit. To be honest it’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. If I take your views on life then there really would be no reason to criminalize murder of any kind. Excuse me for saying that’s a rather sad pathetic way to look at life. If your views are indicative of what atheism is about all I can say is it will never replace Christianity or any other major religion for that matter. The rest of your post is what you’ve said in the past and it’s just as wrong now as it was every other time you’ve posted it. Maybe you could enlighten me as to how valuing life means I’m a control freak who wants to hold women down. It’s nonsense and a product of someone who places stereotypes on people based bigotry. I am surprised as I thought you were more intelligent than that. I knew we didn’t agree, but I never realized just how deep your bias runs.

ravensfan - The entire cost of health care that is now being filtered through insurance companies in this country, is far more than the cost that would be shelled out once the system is stream-lined and becomes all inclusive, as in covering the 47 million now sucking no teat at all, let alone those paying who are relegated to the hind teat of treatment options. The difference is that we would be taxed to cover those options, rather than forced to pay the extortionary rates now being laid out to insure a large skim off the top for stockholders. People are dying because of the current system and any system that leaves the insurance companies in charge WILL end up killing great numbers of people to continue to feed those who provide NOTHING to actual health care. If you give a rat's butt about the sanctity of life, then standing up for the continued corruption of health care, is a piss-poor way to show it.

Robert – How does questioning YOUR solution automatically mean I’m against change? The system needs changing, fixing or whatever you want to call it because EVERYONE should have access to health care. We both agree on that even if we never end up agreeing on how to do it. How does having the government run health care bring costs down. I’m not talking premiums I’m talking the actual costs for providers. Medicare has fraud problems and already is starting to not be accepted by some providers unless you agree to make up the difference. My parents and a few others I know had to get supplemental insurance. Do you have anything to support your claim of this claim of “insure a large skim off the top for stockholders” you made. What portion of revenue ends up paid out as dividends to shareholders? My skepticism in your one-payer idea has nothing to do with trying to protect the insurance companies. I could care less if we put them all out of business tomorrow. I just don’t want to do it and end up worse off then things are now in the current flawed system. The federal government’s track record with finances and efficiency makes my concerns valid and you know it. My concern isn’t your concept it’s the organization trying to do it that concerns me. I think we can both agree on one thing. The current plans being discussed won’t solve the problems we face.

ravensfan - How would One-Payer lower costs? Right off the top, the amount funneled into the pockets of shareholders of insurance company stock, would not have to be factored in. The leaches who rake off a cut, while providing nothing, would be kept from the trough. Second - The paperwork alone could be reduced by simplification of records and accounting, which would drastically lower administrative costs. Third - Proactive health care with preemptive screening would catch problems before they become critical, including finding those whose life-style choices are now feeding so many into expensive care, quite often when it is too late and very expensive to treat. Fourthly - The prices charged by pharmaceutical companies could be effectively negotiated from a position of the strength that having only one customer (The One-Payer-Plan) would guarantee (Which is why drugs are so much cheaper in Canada). Fifthly - American productivity would be improved by having a healthier workforce whose earnings would feed into the support of the system through the added revenue collected on more income. Sixthly - Because businesses would no longer be burdened with providing health care for their workers (driving up the costs of doing business), they would be better able to compete with foreign competitors and help stop the outflow of jobs to countries where health care is provided by the state, or not provided at all. You want more? I'm sure I could come up with several more reasons why the One-Payer-Plan is superior to the load of crap we have now, or the compromised sham that is about to be excreted on us by our mostly insurance company owned Senators and Members of the House.

YOO! Whats up EH! looks like we have some "y'all sayin', sweet tea drinkin' deep-fried pickle eatin' gun-slingin' American's looking for a solution. I'm a dual citizen "EH". Lived in Canada most of my life, and yes I have reaped the benefits of the one-payer system first hand.

First off, a correlating system in the states pinned as a "one-payer" system would not work like in Canada. Straight up. There are too many people in the states. The competition you guys have there is the only thing keeping pricing from totally getting out hand. Simple economics. Canada has a provincial and fed tax which is used accordingly however there is still provincial competition for "private healthcare" which people can opt in to (through employer etc.). If the US was to attempt this, there is no way the sheer volume of the populous would be able to keep costs down without a sizable tax hike. This would lead to taxes across the board. You guys are trying to save money right? In Canada, we are taxed up to 17%!!! Depending on what province you live in, for example Ontario, holds a provincial breakdown as such:

8%for most goods and taxable services
5% for transient (Hotels, motels etc.) accommodation
10% for admission to places of amusement and sales of alcohol
12% for alcohol sold by the LCBO (liquor control board)
To add to this, a 5% FED tax is incorporated. So you see, even alcohol is taxed up front and no one is exempt from federal tax. Alberta is more/less self sustaining due to the oil revenues and therefore does not accrue a provincial sales tax, only GST of 5%. It works up here because we had it this was since the 1990's and we have hardly any people living here. Competition is fine, the manufacturers all have long term deals with the feds, and everyone is happy more/less. Now keep in mind this all basic coverage. For example if you break you hand in Baltimore and go to the hospital, you could find a bill for over 5,000 bucks waiting for you if you don't have private coverage. In Canada, this is all covered. Cosmetic surgery, any reconstructive procedures etc. ,emerg transportation is all at the cost of the private insurance companies or the individual through his/her own wallet or a company sponsored plan. Basic health and wellness is covered 100%

You guys will need something quite unprecidented and unique to make it work. Thanks.

The US gov would totally abuse a one payer plan and target the top "1%" to fund it. For the amount of coverage needed, you would have competing manufacturers for contracts in order to eventually encourage economies of scale, however monopolies do occur and the only way to keep the costs down so that the average Joe could afford to live would be with STRICT caps and government legislation. Again, if the guv wanted to be able to distribute the wealth evenly and have equal coverage for all, there would need to be some sort of economic viability as a result of the lessening of competition. You guys just have too many people to take care of and way too much at stake to have such a massive overhaul. Times have definitely been better to try something like this (as per the debt and condition of the budget right now)

USCanuk - I was wondering who would show up as the insurance industry wonk, to cast vague doubt on the One-Payer-Plan, and it seems to be you. Considering that they have been willing to spend so much to keep that plan off the table, it always amazes me how fast a "new voice" shows up the first moment someone makes the convincing, or credible,argument for the plan. Haven't seen you post before, which means your appearance is much like that of others I've seen in other forums who, using the same vague and truthy sounding points, are being paid to do exactly what you have done, plant a seed of doubt. Hope you are being paid enough to do their dirty work.

Robert, I'm sure your are very dedicated to your cause. I could care less frankly; I have the beauty that is the Canadian system (with it's flaws non the less). I find your points quite valid and worthwhile. Don't crucify me! I'm not against you in the least. I actually agree with most of what you pointed out. I was just curious how a large scale revision would factor into peoples everyday lives. You clearly know how it will work, but WHO is going to pay for it? and can America turn 360 from it's current system?All our stuff works in theory...thanks. Is there another way? you Yankees love to make things a "right" vs "left" thing and that hinders a lot of productivity on a national scale.

USCanuk - We are already paying for it, and more, by the extortionary rates being charged by the insurance industry, whose main concern is NOT the patient, but the stinking stockholders. The current tactic of those trying to torpedo meaningful reform (The One-Payer-Plan) is to build a mountain of doubt centering around the 'workability' argument, in an effort to intimidate the general public into continuing the system already in place, no matter how badly that system is screwing them to the wall. The tactic is to make a monster out of what hasn't happened yet, so as to get them to accept the monster that already has them firmly grabbed by their short hairs.

Robert – You didn’t answer my question. How much get funneled as you put it into the pockets of shareholders? Since historically the government usually requires more paperwork than the private sector to do anything I’m having trouble buying they would be more efficient than private insurers. Your third point does make some sense although since the it was the a government health group advocating pushing mammograms out further I have trouble believing it could work practically. Also how would we stop people from doing those things which create some of those problems? Canada uses more generic drugs which keeps their cost down. Do you have any idea how long or the cost in new drug discovery? That an litigation in this country play a big part in cost. I’m not saying that the pharmaceutical couldn’t be squeeze but what are their profit levels now? Squeeze them too hard and you could create new problems further down the line. I think business may benefit, but to pay for this plan sooner or later would require higher or new taxes some at businesses in order to pay for the costs. You idea has a lot of good points, but don’t kid yourself that it won’t increase costs. I guess my biggest concern is I don’t trust the government’s ability to run it properly based on it’s track record. I do agree what we have now needs to be overhauled or replaced.

ravensfan - I find it interesting that you trust insurance companies, whose major function is to provide profit for investors, over a government run program that would cover all and have the best interests in the patient instead of the stockholders. Your trust is misplaced and that you use the information packet provided by the insurance industry as your defense of a system that cannot work to cover all and that will only continue to perpetrate the death and suffering currently happening, only diminishes the trust any of us can have in your judgement.

Robert - Why is it when someone questions your absolute solution you demonize them. In truth I don't trust either all that much. Insurance companies will put profits first ahead of people and the government has a proven track record of being unable to manage finances properly. If the governments study of mammograms is any indication I wonder how concerned the government will be as well. As for my information it comes from professional work experience. If I were to guess the one reading from info packets is probably you. You made a lot of accusations and provided nothing to support it which I find rather odd since you are so demanding that evidence for God be presented for you to accept Him yet are so willing to buy into liberal propaganda about the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. In the end your assumptions are half baked and completely unrealistic. To believe that the same government who can’t balance it’s own budget or operate a monopoly like the post office and break even could handle something as complex as health care is laughable. As I keep saying back up your claims with something and I’ll be the first to support your idea. Until then I will be skeptical of any idea which the government replaces any private sector organization in anything.

Robert doesn't have proofs or facts. He has dreams and untested ideas. Definately a good start.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Playing both sides of the track only benefits the side currently holding the reigns of the health care buggy and they have no intention of letting go of those reigns. Your denial of support for them and your denial for the only thing that will work (their exclusion from the process altogether) serves their interests and their interests are killing and ruining peoples lives. If you actually gave a damn about the sanctity of life, you would be carrying on the fight your Jesus character would be doing if it was real, instead of making us heathen liberals take up the task of doing the "Christian Thing". Your kind of Hypo-Christian makes me sick.

O Robert you make me laugh every day--you dispel any gloom I may have about the future of the human kind--at the very least you have fire--keep it up--see how Pattycakes has cropped up with his dogma about health care. The public option seems dead--I believe I heard Harry Reid say something about this--we are too far gone Robert--did you just read the NYT Robert--Cap and Trade will cost us trillions--we have too many commitments--we are sagging at our corpulent waists with the debt that we are creating--but reform will tie up the insurance industry in knots--they are raising premium rates in a hell of a hurry and the prices of drugs are going up in a hurry--denial of care is routine Robert--I know, I am intimately involved--patients can't get anything they want--docs cannot prescribe anything patients need--no difference between government or private plans--simply the infrastructure for both is crumbling--too many sick, too few docs, many of the ailments are chronic and too expensive to treat--even when profit motive is taken out the staggering costs remain and the government too will sag under the burden.
Ravensfan Anon.

Robert - You operate under the false assumption that there are only two possible outcomes the status quo and your idea. That’s the only way your “cake and eat it too” statement would have any validity. You have yet to prove your idea is the only one that will work. Actually you’ve yet to prove it will work period. So far you haven’t taken up anything except a steadfast loyalty & faith in an idea with nothing to support it. That runs against the very argument you make against God’s existence. That sure sounds like a hypocrite to me. Twice I’ve said if you could prove you solution was the workable solution I’d support it and twice you’ve responded not with that proof but petty insults and personal attacks. We need a workable solution that provides universal health coverage and does it economically prove you idea can do that Robert. I don’t think the US government is capable of doing it based on its track record. Here’s another idea there are other methods besides yours maybe if you opened your mind a bit and lose the liberal dogma. Your plan isn’t even under consideration at the moment. It’s hard to take you for anything more than a liberal buffoon with posts like that last one.

Now I am honored, both ravensfan and Ravensfan Anon united against me in defense of not taking away the running of health care from the thieves already in control.

Health care has to be run by somebody. The market has proven to not be up to the job because it does what the market does best, sells the product at the highest price the market can bear that will maximise profits while minimizing costs. If people have to be fired from their jobs to maximise profits, so be it. If product has to be limited, buy pricing it to the point where all of it is sold to those willing and able to pay, so be it. If people have to die rather than cut into the bottom line, so be it., and yet somehow this clearly evil way to distribute a basic need of people has its defenders, even on the supposedly high-minded love thy neighbor, remove the stick from your own eye before removing the splinter from another's eye, Jesus loving Right.

Granted, that government has a bad track record in some areas, but considering that the government (as it is currently operating) is every bit as owned by the same forces that control the insurance industry, that has to be expected. What we need, is to take back the government and make it a tool of the people, not the tool of the corporations that are currently holding all the strings. Government is the ONLY alternative to big business contol of health care and if government is corrupt, then it is damn well past time when we end the corruption.

It is well past evident that the Right-wing is a created entity that is being used by corporatist interests through propaganda, jingoistic-patriotism, manipulated history and simplistic symbolism, to control a generally disinterested public, too distracted by minutia to understand how badly they are being played. The rise of simpletons like Sarah Palin and screaming idiots like Glenn (Harold Hill) Beck and Rush "Eater of Bakeries" Limbaugh, are symptomatic of the depths our understanding of reality have sunk to. We are pawns in a giant Ponzi scheme and arguing for what does not work, and can not serve the "People", because we don't have all the information about how a One-Player-Plan might work, despite several already in operation around the world, is asinine and not worthy of the two individuals above who are trying to kill it.

Robert – Do you even know what kinds of profit margins the insurance industry makes? The last time I saw anything it was around 4 to 8%. You keep talking as though they are raking in some sort of windfall profit but as of yet have never actually supported it despite my repeated asking for support. Back up your sermon with some facts like you demand of me for proof of God. Without that it sounds like left wing propaganda. I’ve heard many a left wing pundit say the same thing as you and like you never seem to actually support the argument with facts. You also fail to consider the actual cost of health care services provided and their escalation. One of the biggest drivers of rate increases and coverage denials is claim cost. It’s an issue both current legislation and your idea do not address. That’s why countries using the system you advocate have high rates of tax and still end up with deficit issues. We need to look for ways to drive those costs down and make sure coverage is available to all. The solution could even be a combination of private and public similar to what is done with autos in Maryland. I’m not saying I have the answer simply that you proceed as if yours is the one and only solution and that is not true.

Like most far left extremists you rail about the influence of big business but ignore the influence of groups like the trial lawyers and labor unions who have as much pull as corporate interests. I agree that the government needs cleaning up but from ALL lobbyists, special interest and outside influences not just business so it can do what it’s supposed to do and look out for the best interest of its citizens and not just those with groups behind them.

The only reason people like Palin, Beck and Limbaugh get the attention is that left and media give it to them. The main stream media tends to lean to the left and empty headed blowhards like those three are easy fodder. Had McCain not made the mistake of selecting Palin as a VP candidate she’s still be a little known governor. The other two well they’ve made a career out of being loudmouth intolerant idiots. We hear about them because of the extremist on both sides. The left who attack and vilify them and the right who defend and champion them. The vast majority could care less about what they think, do or say.

You keep talking as though one-payer is some great success story yet every time I ask you to do what you demand for God you seem either unwilling or unable to provide the proof. One more time provide proof that the system does work and could work. Right now you still fall short on both counts. I’m not saying it can’t simply I don’t think it can work and will only replace insurance industry heartlessness with government heartlessness.

ravensfan - I'm sorry, what part of insurance provided propaganda to you think I want to hear you spout again and again? I have no interest in debating the issue with a professed Christian who thinks letting people die to assure profits for stock-holders who provide NOTHING to health care. The Canadian system is a functioning one-payer-system that is working quite well, if that is not proof enough for you, then you can just go take a flying leap for all I care. Taxes will rise to fund such a system, but the savings to the individual will more than make that up. The cost of health care per individual in this country is the highest in the world, but we are way down the list in the quality and quantity we provide per person and we don't even cover 1 in 7 at all. This is NOT a left/right issue, it is an issue of life and death, and you seem to come down on the death side. That makes you one hell of a Christian, so you might want to get off that horse too, Hypo-Christian.

Robert,
Universal coverage is in the current- according to you-- mutilated health care reform. I deal with Medicare everyday and government run anything stinks as much as private industry run anything.

Paperwork is stacked up to the sky in both systems and the bureaucrats rule. With so much garbage to swim through providers are usually depleted and have little meaningful time for their patients--I don't see any fundamental difference between private extortionists and government bureaucrats. They lie in bed together, kiss each other's butts while the revolving door ejects folks from one oligarchy into the next--control is the name of the game and anyone on the receiving end yearns to be set free.

It is government that sold old folks to big pharma with Medicare D--the guys in big government did not even argue the prices of the drugs down; instead they gave a mighty big prize to the pricey pharmaceutical industry. Look at government closely Robert--open your eyes and see its cozy links to private industry--where do all the guys go after retirement from government? Back to the private sector from where they hailed.

If government had really controlled big business like it was supposed to we wouldn't have had the financial meltdown that has plummeted us into our economic debacle. To seize government back-- with Obama wasn't that achieved?

You jumped down the throat of US Canuck--a native Canadian who knew a thing or two about that system being slowly bankrupted by the old sick of Canada. In Canada several people purchase supplementary private insurance--as they do in France and also in England--for better and more complete coverage--so they pay twice--once-- a hefty tax for the public plan and twice for further benefits because the public plan does not suffice or because the waits are too long when the illness and the circumstances are dire.

Ravensfan, for once has it right. With the follies and the inherent flaws in both the systems only a hybrid has a chance of diluting the negatives--whether you like it or not, Medicare our single payer for the elderly outsources a lot to private insurers. Tricare our military insurance, a great model everyone should check out, has always been outsourced to regional private claims processors and payers.

VA hospitals, collaborate with community and private hospitals to avoid overwhelming their own system. And Robert, you cannot make all docs sign up for the single payer system. Many will stay out and there are not enough of them already. Do you foresee a health care system minus docs, nurses, PAs and other practitioners?

All across Georgia, in many parts of NY, right here in Maryland docs are choosing boutique care. Many are opting out of Medicare altogether because it pays a pittance for hard work done and complicated care rendered. Docs and nurses, unlike lawyers spend an inordinate amount of time on the telephone and on the Internet. They are never compensated for these forms of care. Fed up, they have devised novel methods to escape the choke hold of the private insurers and the government.

A single payer system is a grand idea but to implement it in a country with 10 times the population of Canada will be a gargantuan task. Not only the immensity of it but the cost will be staggering. The new health care bill on the table has a proposal to extend Medicare to people 50 years and above. The CBO, a fiercely independent body, has pronounced, that the premiums government would have to extract from enrollees to make this plan viable would be an astronomical 600 dollars per month per person, making it prohibitive for most working middle class.

Sure some of the private insurers are dastardly profiteers but there are non profit models among them. The Blues in Maryland are non profit. If government runs things, employee salaries will be lower but employee benefits would eat into the premiums--the British Health Care system is a juggernaut--it couldn't be totally dismantled even if the British make a valiant attempt--the obligations to the retirees from the system is gobbling up taxes paid to keep the system propped.

That system too is evolving and devolving. Several specialists leave to practice privately. The system is so overburdened the British send many of their complicated surgical patients to the medical factories in India for operative treatments and also for cheaper care.

With its call centers and its medical factories, ironically, India that threw off the British yoke, is being colonized once more by the West, serving the needs of Western patients and Western businesses for money.

Who are the providers of this high end health care on the run and on the cheap in India to the public health care systems of the West? They are wealthy, in fact mega wealthy private docs, who answer to no one in the Indian government--they are entrepreneurs who run their Health care factories like an international business.

Robert, no use pouncing down Ravensfan's throat about this issue--it is far more complex than you make it out to be--I know you will accuse me and others of being in the employ of the private insurers with a vested interest in keeping the status quo alive. And when you do that you will address none of the issues I have described--essentially you will talk over me like I never wrote at all.

Of all the single payers, state Medicaid programs stand out. In Maryland, I wonder if you know, that the state Medicaid program, has been ceded to private insurers like Johns Hopkins and United Health Care because the state didn't want the administrative burden anymore--it wanted to get out of health care because it felt it had more important business to attend to.

Your paean to the single payer system and government run health care springs from blind passion rather than from reason--it is misplaced--people are dying in both types of health care because of denial of care and delay in care.

In the VA, veterans die because they see their docs only once in three months and they wait until they are too far gone for certain treatments. Medicare is rapidly copying the private models for denial of care to save money so the system will remain solvent.

In both types of health care psych patients are treated as second class citizens. Returning veterans have been denied care for PTSD. The army has failed to provide active duty personnel with thyroid and other meds they need for treatment of their chronic conditions, in the field.

Most importantly Medicare does not provide dental care--so also Medicaid. What a load of crock--physical health is closely tied to oral health--coronary artery disease, exacerbation of diabetes, even brain abscesses have been tied to dental hygiene.

Private insurers are ignoramuses about this too and provide lousy dental coverage which often has to be purchased at a higher premium separate from routine coverage. Ditto for federal BCBS. How enlightened is that and where is the fundamental difference between the private and the public insurers in this matter?

And as much as the government loves to tout that the poor are covered through Medicaid, the formulary of drugs available to treat the poor is desperately small. If a poor man has an allergic reaction to a cheap medicine on the Medicaid formulary, his doc or his nurse would have to jump through thirty odd hoops to get him what he can tolerate. The poor had better tolerate what is thrown at them by the government and the government has employed private insurance thugs to say "NO" to the poor.

You call this the kind of care that saves lives and prevents bankruptcies Robert?
Ravensfan Anon

Robert – Actually what I want is for you to provide PROOF that your solution will work. It doesn’t work in Canada for most. I’m glad it helped your family but that is one case. Anon’s post is dead on right. What he has to say makes much more sense. The fact that you despite several requests have yet to provide one single shred of proof your solution will work makes it hard for me to consider you anything except an extreme left wing head case. Your solution does NOTHING to address the cost of health care. You cling to it with as much blind faith as you rail on me and other Christians for having. Your problem is you only see one solution yours as the only way and anyone who dares question it is a pawn of the insurance industry and supporting death. That’s the same type of moronic scare tactics that the very people you mentioned, Limbaugh, Beck and Palin use when trying to sell their views. About the only thing you are correct on is it is not a left/right issue. It’s because of extremists shouting like your that we may well never actually fix the problem. Here’s a suggestion when you respond save the insults and provide the proof because I don’t think you can. For someone who mocks others for faith I find you quite the hypocrite for your blind faith in one-payer as the only solution.

Exceptional Rfan Anon!! well spelled out and quite reasonable. Yes, that's right, you are the man right now Rfan. Preach it brother. Preach it loud so other rational minds might join the cause to actually work towards a plan FOR THE PEOPLE. Someone mentioned the fact these things become so "right vs left" and I see that in Robert among others. Generally the Dem's want this thing -- the all-out trumping of the current system for for all-out government one-payer -- and the Rep's don't. Dem's and Rep's need to work together. Athiests and believers (yes, even Glen Beck and Mr.Littel)need to find common ground and realize the intricacies of this problem. Robert's tirades seem to be of Democratic extremism. Why man? Why does it have to come across like that? Am I nuts?

p.s. I am the official former #2, now #1 fan of Ravensfan Anon!!! could this be cause for a celebratory name change???

It amazes me how, at the first mention of the One-Payer Plan, there is always one or more posters, who jump on the person suggesting it with almost the same identical litany of exhaustive verbiage, at every major paper's political and medical blogs.

You have novices like ravensfan, who are mostly trying to double-talk their way out of responsibility for what clearly goes against the supposed teachings of their god creatures and its required debt for its followers to care for their fellow Human beings, which he clearly does not want to do.

Then there is pattycakes, a clueless religious automaton only slightly up the scale from the brain dead Clay, whose rationale for letting the insurance companies continue to kill for profit is that we should all work together to give the insurance companies the type of outcome they have paid so much to get, as if letting them continue to rip and rake us over the coals is somehow working "FOR THE PEOPLE". She/he/it is clearly hopeless.

Ravensfan Anon is another case altogether, a seemingly bright and thoughtful individual, who at the first mention of the One-Payer-Plan, springs into action by spewing out a many paragraphed recitation of every talking point being pushed by the lobbyists who are not only trying to make the plan never see the light of day, but are also working their butts off (and paid well to do so) to kill any change in the current system. The tactics are being used all over the country, they are all of the same nature, they are all attempts to throw volumes of response, that the supporter of the One-Payer-Plan would have to take days to address and if they did, their response would be so voluminous that the likes of people like pattycakes, ravensfan and the childlike (and seemingly willing to allow gays to be killed in Uganda) Clay, would never even read it, as if it would have an effect on them anyway. Ravensfan Anon's function is to hollow out the effort to achieve meaningful health care reform, reform which can only be accomplished by getting it out of the hands of the thieves who now control it. The system, as it now exists, has driven costs up so much that even the governmental programs are subject to the abuses coming down from an industry that exists, not to help patients, but to feed the greed of the few at the top. They are making it a fight to the death, your death if necessary and they mean to win no matter what they have to do, including monitoring forums like this and doing exactly what Ravensfan Anon has done here to muddy the pond and make sure no one sees the truth.

Robert – If the One-Payer-Plan is all you say why have you yet to actually back it up with anything? In fact all I’ve seen you do is attack anyone who even hints at questioning your assumptions. On at least two occasions I’ve already said I’d support your idea if you could prove it could do what you claim. At the risk of sounding un-Christian the only one posting in ignorance is you. I’m use to being personally attacked and reading your attacks on Pattycakes and Clay. Now Anon makes a credible and logical argument and instead of countering you blow him off with petty nonsense. You are so clueless on this issue it would be funny if the stakes weren’t so important. You sound like a true left wing extremist blaming the insurance industry for the entire mess and refusing to look at the whole picture. To be sure a large part of blame goes there, but they aren’t the ones that cause the actual costs of the services to increase. They pass that along plus a markup. Since I don’t believe profit margins have significantly increased in the industry the only other explanation is that the actual claims cost are going up. Your One-Payer-Plan does nothing that would significantly address that issue. You even try and blame the industry for the government’s failings with what it already administers. For someone who spends so much time demeaning people over faith I find it rather hypocritical that you exhibit the same faith in a health plan. It’s extremist like you who will probably kill any chance of getting real workable reforms enacted and that is a crime.

ravensfan - Health care reform means one thing and one thing only, and that is fixing it so it does what it is supposed to do. The people on one side of the issue have the strange and unusual idea that its function should be to provide health care to everyone who needs it, to alleviate suffering and promote the general health of society.

The other side believes that it is a market function to provide opportunities for investors to make a profit by providing a product to those willing and able to buy it, at a rate that maximises the flow of product at the lowest cost to produce, in order to line the pockets of the fortunate few,with the difference. If the market cannot afford the product in a way that guarantees the desired level of profit, then producing the level of product needed has to be weighed against the level of product necessary to bring back the largest return. Of course this necessitates that many will have to do without, much the way those who cannot afford ice cream every day have to do without, but health care is not damn ice cream and to do without it can mean DEATH.

I don't give a flying crap about your lack of interest in doing anything meaningful to fix the problem, but I'll be damned if your disinterest is going to shoot down the only alternative that has a chance to remove the one element from the present system that guarantees it will not do the one and only job health care should be concerned with, that element being the profit motive. Until that element is removed from the formula, everything else short of that WILL FAIL. The one payer system removes profit from the equation, which in and of itself, makes it stand out far and above anything else out there. The streamlining of all the paperwork, regulations, policy, cost of drugs, preemptive care and the increased heath of the workforce in a business atmosphere not being crushed under the yoke of extortionary insurance companies, all make that plan far outshine anything now being squeezed through the vise of corporate greed ownership of the Senate and Congress.

Ravensfan Anon makes the case being made by the lobbyists who are trying to crush any reform, so why would I give it any more consideration than it deserves, which is none.

You should look at it cause it is rational and very down to earth. Rfan Anon (as much as I hate to say it :)) has a very good perspective on this issue Robert. You have no idea the implications of your proposal. It's like you put it out there and by doing so that makes it credible -- and without a wink of the HOW as apposed to the WHAT. We know very well WHAT you would do Robert. If you actually looked at your ideas in the HOW, you would see just how hardheaded and unrealistic they are. You actually think by magically switching over to a government run insurance plan -- which is really what it is -- we are going to be "lawdy daw" all of a sudden? Where are the insurance companies going to go? You think the government is going to clean up the mess they made in the financials? (never mind taking over healthcare!!) How Robert, HOW?

Robert –Whatever system is used for health care including one-payer will still need to break even in order to exist. Like any far left extremists you place the blame in one place and propose a simple minded solution. One-payer will not do anything to streamline paperwork, regulations, cost of drugs or any other costs of services. You have provided NOTHING other than your opinion that supports your claims. The current government run programs already have far more problems than the private sector so to even hint that one-payer would streamline anything is asinine. The insurance companies have nothing to do with the cost of drugs or services rendered. Taking out profit will save at best 4 to 8 percent. Subtract the additional costs of adding current uninsured that will more than eat up the savings. If you want one payer at least have the common sense to realize it will cost more unless something is done to reduce drug and medical service costs. Simply reimbursing less will simply reduce resources and eventually create shortages or a market for secondary private insurance that exists in many one-payer countries now. If you think this then you are even more naïve than Clay. One-payer is a financial and resource problem in the countries that do it now because it does not address the cost of medical services provided. It simply makes the government the sole insurance entity. If you don’t agree then back it up with facts. So far all you’ve done is copy off the standard liberal talking points sheet. You are a hypocrite for condemning others for faith in God while having faith in something that has not been proven to work. Your so-called solution will create a host of new problems you are just either to naïve or brain washed to realize it.

pattycakes - stop flitting around, you haven't got a clue.

ravensfan - Stinking Cuba provides better health care for its people than several states do in this country. I will not have your lobbyist supplied propaganda, cloud this issue the way they have been doing it throughout this entire debate. The one payer plan anywhere it is being used, works better than our system does for 47 million of U.S citizens, so any crap you throw at this argument is just that, crap. The current system CANNOT be fixed and must be scrapped. It is nothing but a sanctioned criminal operation that lets bean counting bureaucrats commit premeditated murder using a slide-rule. If you support that, you are no Christian.

Robert – Stop watching Michael Moore propaganda. It’s as bad as right wingers who swear by Limbaugh and Beck. Cuba’s health care quality is awful for the average Cuban and well below what it is here. To even suggest it shows your blind faith to far left propaganda. One-payer does not work better anywhere and you have yet to back that assertion with any facts. Why are you so willing to accept a health care solution on faith yet deny God without proof? Doesn’t that strike you as hypocritical? I never said I support anything. I said your solution is flawed and will not work. Why trade one problem for a bigger one? That’s what you are advocating. You want me to agree then prove it with facts and stop spewing empty rhetoric.

ravensfan - There are poor in Mississippi who would consider it as having died and gone to heaven if they ended up with the health care the average Cuban enjoys. Cuban health care may be behind our best care, but when our best care (or any care for that matter) is denied to 47 million of our citizens, anything you have to offer on the subject is pure crap. You argue for staying on the horse we are already riding despite the fact that it is already in the process of dying, rather than jumping onto the back of a new horse that hasn't been broken fully to the bridle. Bean-counter, premeditated murder, for the sake of the stockholders, is not a system that can be fixed or defended by anyone except a doctrinaire Right-wing Bible-Nazi with no compassion, or connection, to the teachings of your supposed savior. You are a blatant Hypo-Christian, who better hope there is no such place as hell.

Robert - As expected, you have nothing to say.

Robert – I haven’t argued for staying on anything. I didn’t say the system was perfect or should even be kept. You operate from the dogmatic narrow minded view that if one isn’t for your one-payer idea they support the current system. All I’ve argued that the horse you want to get on can’t support the weight you want to put on it. So far you’ve yet to prove it can. I’ve left the door open to agree if you provided actual proof for what you advocate yet as of yet all I get is standard far left rhetoric from you. Regardless of what you think any plan current one, or any new one used for providing insurance needs to be able to at least break even. If it doesn’t then eventually it will end up leaving those poor people in Mississippi you mention worse off then they currently are now. The fact that all you can do is childish name calling shows me you have NOTHING to back up anything you advocate. Cuban health care is behind our best, average and worst health care. To say otherwise is just plain stupid. Prove me wrong Robert that’s all you have to do. Otherwise I can’t take you as anything other than a left wing nutcase with no clue on how to solve the current health care problems facing this country. As you said to me “Put up or shut up”.

ravensfan - Anything less than the dismantling of the current system, by removing the profit motive from the process, is arguing for the continuance of the present system, even if some meaningless tweaking is done to it. All you are doing is being obstructionist, which only serves the interest of a status quo that is not working, will not work and is killing people, all to make the rich even richer on the backs of the middle-class. You are either a shill for the insurance industry, someone who is just stupidly clueless, or a victim of Right-wing propaganda that somehow allows you to profess to be a Christian, while at the same time causing people to suffer and die.

pattycakes - You have it partially correct, I have nothing to say.......TO YOU!

Robert – Prove it. So far all I’ve seen is extreme left propaganda from you. Not only haven’t you addressed my concerns, but you dismissed valid points raised by Anon and USCanuck. All you do is repeat the same tired extreme left wing diatribe over and over. Your solution could well cause more suffering and death in the long run then the current flawed system. Insulting me doesn’t prove your point. Here I thought you were only clueless when it came to religion. It appears your arrogance and ignorance extends to health care and if I had to guess just about everything else. Only a real fool takes an issue so complicated it and tries to simplify the solution to the level you have. It’s obvious you have no intelligent response to mine or anyone’s concerns so I’ll wait for yet another mindless rant calling me a shill for the insurance industry since that appears to be all you can do.

ravensfan - I find it most interesting that you want me to "prove" something that hasn't happened yet. It is almost as brazen as your call for me to prove your god does not exist, which logically cannot be done also. Why don't you prove to me that the introduction of the matter pattern replicator, will undermine industry when its introduced. (it is on the drawing board if some kinks and physics can be bent to the task). It may end hunger and want, or it may turn us all into hedonistic addicts, but I cannot prove it either way. I can prove that the present health care system is KILLING people (seemingly with your blessing) and I can call for the radical means that will be needed to address this travesty of greed. You, on the other hand, seem comfortable with the status quo and any meaningless tweaks to the system that will leave it basically where it is today, still KILLING people for profit. I think it is you who have some serious questions to answer, not me.

Hey Robert,
Killing people is multi modal--people are killing themselves--the poor because they can't help it--the corporations fill up supermarkets close to them with fattening rubbish, the rich folks kill themselves because they can't stop overeating and overexercising--the middle class is into comfort foods, everyone wants addictive pills--prescription pill addiction is the biggest malady that has struck the land--excess is the name of the game--docs are killing patients out of sheer apathy and callousness --they overuse CAT scans and other tests exposing patients to massive doses of radiation, they operate without compunction or forethought, they ignore symptoms that are obvious, they are spending less and less time with their patients and more and more time on paperwork required by government--when the profit motive is taken out and they are salaried they will kill even more people because they will only work a few short hours a day and pack it up and go home like the British docs--not too long ago there was an article in the British papers about many of these docs being unavailable to their patients at night because they truly did not care and believed they were not paid enough to slog at all odd hours. You are right about the insurance companies--they are ghoulish because it is the blood of the sick that feeds them--when they are not even the diagnosticians, healers or the true purveyors of health care-- the obscene salary of William Jews, the CEO of the non profit Blues of Maryland is an example--but the government will be no better--it could not even close the doughnut hole for Medicare D recipients this time around because big pharma didn't let the Obama folks and the Democrats do this and Obama and Co played violin to Big Pharma's siren song.
Are the poor in Mississippi worse off than the Cubans when it comes to health care? Even when they have state Medicaid that is often the case because the state governments are in the business of strict rationing as much as the private insurers. Let us say a single payer system appeared on the scene--your argument that profit will be out of the picture will be true--but paperwork will not be streamlined--you would not believe the paperwork requirements of the federal government when it comes to Medicare--nightmarish is an understatement--payment to docs and nurses will be a pittance to keep cost down--the federal government will not want to bankrupt itself for health care--cheaters and hucksters will proliferate in response--the government will chase them by hiring more and more regulators and bureaucrats--profit motive may be out but the need for money will not diminish and will only worsen as time goes by--in Cuba the government is everything Robert and the Castros are the government--the fact that people have their basic health care needs met does not mean that when they get chronic and complicated diseases government health care comes through for them consistently or successfully. If we get the one payer system we will have rudimentary coverage--some preventive services and counseling for one and all with cheap meds for simple conditions--this will work as long as we don't fall victims to dreadful ailments like cancer or organ failures--as long as we don't need coronary by passes or chronic dialysis--for more complicated needs we will have to go out and buy our own supplements--the government cannot afford to provide the whole 9 yards--most single payer systems practice extreme austerity to stay viable and more and more are asking participants with expensive needs to go out and find their own coverage in addition to their public policies or are finding doctors in cheaper international centers to take care of their more demanding patients. Private enterprise thus enters the fray via the back door. Michael Moore's presentation of public health care systems in the few places he highlighted in his movie was a narrow examination--all positive and nothing negative while the conservatives' examination of the single payer systems also falls in the same category--totally biased and all negative. Neither system is a panacea and a cure for what ails the world--overpopulation, epidemic cancers, diabetes, obesity and lethal heart problems. A decent public private collaboration is needed across the globe to tackle the complexity of modern diseases- a result of inordinate stress, industrial pollutants and addictions.
Ravensfan Anon

Robert – I’ve never called for you to prove God exists. All I did was point out the obvious logical fallacy that of you saying God definitely does not exist solely because it hasn’t been prove to your satisfaction. As for what I want on health care I want you to mount a rational, logical and convincing argument for the plan you maintain is the ONLY solution to the current health care problems the country faces. Because you assume there are only two solutions yours and the status quo you assume anyone opposed to your idea or even questioning it supports the current system. Your solution is like jumping out of a leaking boat into another leaking boat with less water in it. The result is the same the boat and you go down. Of course you would think it’s me because you are too narrow of vision to think outside the box for more than one solution. On faith alone you believe your solution is the only one. Nothing supports it and several people raised legitimate questions to which all you have done is attack them personally rather than defend your narrow minded solution. Your solution will KILL more people in the long run and you are either to blind or stupid to see it. Until you clear your brain of the far left liberal nonsense and start looking at all the pieces of the problem you will continue to sound like an extreme left wing puppet.

ravensfan - As usual, in an effort to discredit someone who points out how embarrassing your positions are relative to your supposed Christian beliefs, you have twisted what is said for dramatic effect.....again. Never once have you asked me to prove a god, or any god exists. You have called on me to show that it does NOT exist, despite the fact that it is impossible to prove logically, a negative assertion. It would be like asking me to prove angels don't fart, and just as absurd.

You have taken it upon yourself to be the defender of the faith, not by taking a stand in defense of it, but by trying to intimidate anyone who makes a credible attempt to point out how flimsy the basis of god concepts actually are and show them in a negative light. Sorry, but bullying the discussion and disparaging the character of those who don't subscribe to the colossal pile of crap subscribed to by people who had them spoon-fed to them as impressionable children, is not going to wash. The days of religious suppression of alternative ideas is over, get used to it.

Robert – Why did you ignore the real issue your dogmatic defense of the one-payer system. You made NO attempt to mount any rational and logical argument for what your position. Instead you spent all that time attacking me and my beliefs and none on the issue we were discussing. I can’t help but wonder why. Suppressing alternative ideas? What a joke. You’re the playing the role of defender by attacking anyone who even hints that your one-payer system isn’t the magical cure-all you belief on faith it to be. Try practicing what you preach and don't suppress ideas on health care that fall outside your personal liberal dogma.

ravensfan - For the life of me, I cannot figure out why you are so fixated on shutting down the discussion on a program (up and running fairly well in several countries) that is not even being allowed on the table. I realize that there is a concerted effort, funded and organized by the insurance companies, to see that it never gets put on the table and I have to wonder why you, personally, are mounting the attack against it here, unless you have a vested interest in its suppression.

We KNOW the present system is totally corrupt, does not work for the people being fleeced and is causing much suffering and death among those who are excluded to make profit margins for the already obscenely rich. The focus I'm interested in is the one you are trying to deflect by making me jump through hoops that have NOTHING to do with your complacency with a system that is operating so far outside the supposed scope of your purported delusional beliefs. You are trying to make the discussion about me, when your position is the one that is causing so much pain, ruin and death. The One-Payer-Plan will get its day in the court of public opinion, despite your sides effort to bury it, when the time is right. Right now the question we should be dealing with is why you, and the Right, support the continuation of a system, or its bastardized form now coming out of the convoluted legislative process, that assures continued suffering and death, all to line some greedy self-serving pockets of people who provide NOTHING to health care?

Robert – I never said I wanted it shut down. In fact I even said I’d support it if you could support what you claimed about it. It is not running fairly well in any of the countries. Anon has made a far better case for the problems then I could and you have yet to mount any rational and logical rebuttal. USCanuck raised some valid questions on your assumptions on how it would work and you posted nothing to refute his questions. Both appear to have experience and I have as well with both the UK and Canadians systems. They do not work as you claim and bring a host of new problems o the table. They do NOTHING to reduce the actual cost of providing health care. All they do is replace the flawed current system with a different flawed system. By your own admission the current government system could not do it as government currently works. Given that how can you advocate one-payer? Get off your socialist soap box about the evil corporate greed and explain how one-payer can be done and cost less then the current system. Explain how the federal government which has shown on so many occasions it can’t manage finances is going to take over health care and not go broke or end up raising taxes to the levels they exist in the countries which have on-payer. What exactly do you think the government will bring to health care? Once again instead of making the case for your position you simply attack the current system which I’ve already agreed needs fixing. Explain why your solution is the ONLY solution. I’m not shutting anything down I’m asking you to support with valid rational logic why your one-payer system is the solution which is all I’ve done from the beginning.

One freaking last time. I'm not here to argue the merits of the One-Payer Plan. I am not on trial here and the discussion is not about the merits of a system that at the present time (due to insurance company power and people like you) is not going to get on the table until we rise up and demand it, en-mass, which is not likely to happen any time soon, due to the laziness and ignorance of the American citizen. I am here to find out why YOU are able to acquiesce, or pay lip service to ineffectual repair of the system in place, as it continues to ruin lives, cause suffering and death, all to make a few rich SOBs richer? I want to know why YOU are reacting to this travesty without rising up in indignation over the Unchristian treatment of your fellow human beings by these entrenched thieves? I will not stay on the ropes over this issue, when clearly, that position belongs to you.

Robert – From the first exchange I said the current system is flawed and needs to changing or maybe even scrapping. The reason you don’t see it is you are too stuck on your narrow view of where the problems are and the solution for them. Let me state it yet again for you. That any person in this country does not have access to quality health care is a travesty and unacceptable. I could care less what the insurance companies think on the subject or any other interest group. What is needed is a common sense look at the whole process not just the insurance piece. That’s the point that escapes you. Simply replacing one flawed system with another won’t provide a long term solution to the problem. The only reason you are on the ropes is your dogged defense of what you view as the ONLY solution. You can’t qualify or quantify anything you say and spout the extreme left jargon and shout down anyone who questions your position. In the end its narrow minded thinking like yours and lobbying from special interest groups that will manage to keep any practical workable reform from coming about.

ravensfan - The only solution to the health care crisis must involve getting the insurance companies out of health care. They cannot be trusted to provide something so vital and necessary to a degree that is needed to cover everyone, because they run it as an extortion racket. That leaves no alternative but the public option, so you might as well get used to the idea that the government, once we purge corporatists shills from elected office, is the only viable alternative. It flies in the face of Right-wing doctrine and dogma, but because that doctrine and dogma has been used to further the interests of corporate thievery, it too will have to go. Rationality and pragmatism are going to have to be the bed-rock of our institutions, not the dogma driven greed being pushed on us from the top, by those taking so much more than their share just because they can get away with it.

Barack Hussein Obama is the most pro-abortion president in US history. In less than one year in office he has:

• Restored US funding for the UN Population Fund, the UN’s population control agency that helped set up and run the Chinese forced abortion program.

• Overturned the US ban on funding International Planned Parenthood Federation and the Center for Reproductive Rights, aggressive pro-abortion and anti-family groups that are deeply involved in forcing abortion on unwilling people all over the world, especially in Latin America.

• Obama’s negotiators at the UN have already made aggressive pro-abortion and anti-family statements at the UN including signing a French declaration that seeks to make homosexuals a specially protected class at the expense of religious freedom.

commonsense - And that is all bad, HOW? Absolutist religionists seem determined to force their notion that sex (outside of marriage and only for procreation) is somehow evil. We don't share your clenched butt attitudes, nor do we intend to "pay the price" that you always seem to think has to be paid by people who are doing exactly what your supposed god made so damn much fun to do. If you come back with the old, "He's testing us" crap, then I think the test, if it has to be taken by us at all, is about how good we are at enjoying this wonderful gift outside of the much over-warn need to breed more of us.

A "one-payer" system is a nice thought. The United States has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. Over 31% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. Because the U.S. does not have a unified system that serves everyone, and instead has thousands of different insurance plans, each with its own marketing, paperwork, enrollment, premiums, and rules and regulations, our insurance system is both extremely complex and fragmented.
The Medicare program operates with just 3% overhead, compared to 15% to 25% overhead at a typical HMO. Provincial single-payer plans in Canada have an overhead of about 1%.
It is not necessary to have a huge bureaucracy to decide who gets care and who doesn’t when everyone is covered and has the same comprehensive benefits. With a universal health care system we would be able to cut our bureaucratic burden in half and save over $300 billion annually. Robert you like to point this out more/less.
Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. The health systems in Great Britain and Spain are other examples. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage medical practices or hospitals.
The term socialized medicine is often used to conjure up images of government bureaucratic interference in medical care. That does not describe what happens in countries with national health insurance where doctors and patients often have more clinical freedom than in the U.S., where bureaucrats attempt to direct care.
In a "perfect" publicly financed, universal health care system, medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. This is true even in the countries like the U.K. and Spain (or in U.S. systems like the VA) that have socialized medicine.
In a public system, the public has a say in how it’s run. Cost containment measures are publicly managed at the state level by elected and appointed agencies that represent the public. This agency decides on the benefit package and negotiates doctor fees and hospital budgets. It also is responsible for health planning and the distribution of expensive technology. Thus, the total budget for health care is set through a public, democratic process. But clinical decisions remain a private matter between doctor and patient. Yes, an American public option is a NICE THOUGHT. It's the carrot in front of America's face. Having said this however, watch the hell out what you wish for. There are agendas on the board. The feds are in bed with the insurance companies and other profit driven big-shots and you are an idiot if you think that these execs and shareholders are just going to vanish.
Robert, your profit motive is more prevalent than your meager mind is acknowledging. You say that the motive must be taken away from the insurance bastards -- which I agree with -- lives need to be saved yes, people need access yes, but you are blind to think that it is the end of the problem. Population control, TARP repayment, financial stability, economic viability, BS with foreign policies keeping our global image nice and squeaky clean, OH and did I say population control? will all be factored into this process, and if you are ready for this: PROFIT my friend. Profit to fund agendas such as population control, "global warming" and God knows what else; maybe foot-longs for life from Subway for Bernanke, Geithner and friends? And people think it will be kosher if this goes through? Maybe for a while till the dust settles. The whole idea behind a government "take-over" -- which it really is because it it will be them who pay the state doctors, healthcare workers, laborers, insurance persons etc. -- is to set up for control. They have the lightning bolts now -- ready to strike down whom ever they see fit whenever it will be convenient for them. Sure it won't happen right away, they are not that stupid. They will be laughing all the way to total control because they are the law of the land. America is the empire of the age. We are the most influential empire on earth. For how much longer is another debate altogether. How will you make a system work when you have so many people to keep healthy? Like Robert loves to proclaim: POPULATION CONTROL. The freakin United Nations are also in bed with the "progressive" countries of the world who endorse such abominations. Look how credible they are!

So you can shift the majority of power from the insurance companies to the government all you want; it all boils down to THE FIT AND RICH SHALL PREVAIL... At any and ALL cost.

Here is an article from Tuesday in a national newspaper column.

National Post, Tuesday Dec 15 2009.

"Is there an award for the most absurd comment on Copenhagen? If not, let's institute one. Award the prize directly to the National Post's Diane Francis for her Dec. 8 column recommending that the whole world adopt China's one-child policy."

"Over in Copenhagen, it's hard to get attention amidst the tens of thousands of politicians, activists, scientists, celebrities, spokesmen, chauffeurs, gourmet chefs, private plane pilots, bag-carriers, prostitutes (metaphorical and actual), to say nothing of the journalists covering it all. So the more clever participants have taken to awarding fake prizes -- "Fossil of the Day" -- to steal a moment or two in the spotlight. No reason the environmental lobby should have all the fun. Step right up, Diane Francis, for your work in the field of enviro-Malthusianism!"

"Every paper is entitled to have outside-the-box columnists opining on one topic or another. And Francis is often outside -- way outside -- with some of her positions. But this time, she has gone too far. Her 2009 entry is not just about cheap laughs. Calling for a global one-child policy is misguided. If implemented, it would be outright wicked."

"Francis has not been paying attention these last four decades. Back in 1969, overpopulation was the crisis of the moment. The Earth would run out of resources, poverty would expand, a global population of a few billion would be wracked by famine and disease. Yet we have now over six billion people, five billion of whom are rich, middle class or in countries developing at a sufficient rate that they will escape subsistence poverty."

"The problem for large parts of the world, including China, is not too many children, but too few. From Scotland to Siberia, populations are not replacing themselves, inviting looming crises in employment, social welfare and immigration. By 2025, Japan will be the oldest society in history, with so many pensioners that the whole country will be something of a nursing home, with all workers paying the bills. China will be the second oldest country ever, but still being relatively poor, will not be able to pay for everyone's care. In 15 years time, carbon emissions will not be China's most pressing concern -- it will be how to keep the indigent elderly from dying on the street."

"Francis thinks that "fundamentalist religion" is the obstacle to widespread population reduction. But from Singapore to the Saguenay, it is proudly secular governments who trying anything and everything to raise the birthrate."

"The one-child policy is the most expansive, systematic program of human rights violations in the world. North Americans look back in shame to the 1920s when the eugenics movement was in full swing, and it was respectable to talk about breeding licences and sterilizations for the "retarded." China has a breeding licence program for over a billion people, complete with coercion, threats of financial ruin and in some cases, forced sterilizations and abortions. There is a reason that only China has a one-child policy. Only a regime such as the People's Republic, willing to kill tens of millions of its own citizens, could aspire to state control of procreation.
"

"It would be wicked to implement a one-child policy in 2009, now that the practical results are known. Over 30 years of the one-child policy, tens of millions of girls have fallen victim to abortion and infanticide. Killing little girls is surely the most perverse carbon-reduction scheme on offer."

"The environment is not a static reality under threat from human beings. Rather, the creativity of the human person enhances the possibilities for human life and happiness; without farmers, for example, even the most fertile land produces no food. In the same way, the freedom of the human person places an obligation of care upon the environment, which is why free countries are better ecological stewards that tyrannies, like China or Russia."

People are the solution, in other words, not the problem."

pattycakes - I try not to waste much time addressing you because of your Clay like inanity, but if the world were to try to achieve the standard of living that we have here in this country today, we would need three more planet Earth's worth of resources and we would see the generation of pollution at levels that would be suicidal for our entire species. An exhaustive and comprehensive study, funded by the UN and encompassing a wide field of disciplines, concluded that a livable standard of living could be maintained for the total population of the planet, if and only if, the population of the planet is reduced to 2 billion. We are not talking about a US standard of living either, so when you champion the right of people to breed as they wish, you are condemning us all to death in the long run. We either deal with the issue now, or start to write our own epitaph. There is no magic pill, no Jesus coming back to save us and in our closed system (unless we can get a viable amount of our genetic material off the planet), no place to hide.

Talk about inanity Robert... you are hopeless.

Pattycakes both you and Robert have points--populations should be controlled. The aged are living longer and longer--they've got to get off their asses and work harder--retire later--if they plan on having their lives extended to kingdom come. By the same token the coercive policies of the Chinese cannot be endorsed--I do not believe Robert is endorsing them either--your argument for an exponential increase in the population for an adequate labor supply, so the elderly can rest their limbs while the young pay for their grand longevity is indeed inane--the Earth's resources are not infinite, neither is the Earth's agrarian land nor is the Earth's energy supply. Also capitalism the one system that provides enough jobs relies on markets to sell goods produced--the more the people, the more the unemployed because there are only so many jobs to go around even in a system of free enterprise--the more the unemployed, the more the restive populations across the globe and the more the mischief afoot--al Qaeda is an example of this type of mischief--it is spawned by the poverty that plagues the nations playing hosts to al Qaeda. Of course it could be argued that the more the people the larger the markets to consume the products coming out of the belly of capitalism. Yes, that would be the case if not for the irony that a higher population would actually decimate the potential markets for consumer goods by causing greater unemployment, poverty and inability to consume all the goods produced. Japan is an extreme case you have used to illustrate your point that a zero birth rate will enervate a nation--Italy is another example of that--the Vatican is not helping in this birth rate burst you propose Pattycakes--they only want others to breed --your-all-life-is-sacred and a-just fertilized-ovum-too-is-life theory is what has propelled you to attack Robert--by the same token I agree the communists of China cross the line when they force people to reproduce no more than one baby in a lifetime--birth control has to be voluntary but it must be adopted seriously by all humans who want to survive--they commit suicide when they breed without constraints--your rant in favor of such breeding borders on insanity--not just inanity.
Ravensfan Anon

The population problem in China was so severe that the line on the graph was, and still is going straight up. The drastic measures they have taken were the only choice they had. Even with one child per couple, the population will still rise heavily for the next few years before peaking and then it will turn and drop sharply. China has the only type of government that can force such action and we are seeing that because of the direction from the top, they are better able to direct their economy in directions that make sense, which is why they are going to be leading the way in alternative energy products, which they will then supply to the rest of the world.

What is hard, or impossible, for the doctrinaire free-market wonks who are in control here to understand, is that our greed driven economy with our corporate owned government, is not flexible enough to deal with the monumental and accelerating changes affecting the planet.

Our population will soon hit 350 million, which is about where India's was when I was born and they were already in trouble then. We have to make some hard choices, but voluntarily ignoring reality is not one of them

Fair enough Rfan Anon -- your theoretical summation is interesting -- bringing to light the capacities of people lost in such paradigms of "reason" and "rationale".
Is it reasonable to prevent a "global" theoretical over-population by means of degradation and extermination? Is it rational to think of others not yet in existence as "consuming", "resource-dwindling", "unmarketable" or "objectionable"? I would say no. Such ideology as demonstrated by your school of thought is ironically what breeds a "capitalism-abused" movement. You have already deemed more persons unnecessary because it COULD (not will, but could) infringe on MY (our) western way of life. How dare they. Right? Robert Claims that for all of us to share in the prosperity which we in the west already enjoy, we are going to need 3 more planets of similar composition. Who said happiness comes from cable TV and Kentucky Fried Chicken?
Here is the parallel guys: When I deem something to be of benefit to myself, greed says keep it that way at all costs without concern for others. Don't think about the others, don't think about the ramifications of my greed just make sure nothing comes into take away what I have in my comfort. Whether it's comfort knowing that the world is not being over populated with "useless" people or comfort in my ridiculously large holdings from my hedge funds, what is so different from the guys on Wall Street and the minds of your movement? You guys are trying to positively propagate this ever so slyly by extrapolating figures, sleeping with the right organizations, and crushing anyone who would appose you by using mainstream media outlets and "celebrity" endorsement to secure your ideologies. What's the incentive to believe your BS? "We will all survive in peace and harmony once the poor and unwanted are destroyed; the cost of living will go down due to less competition for resources; the global standard of life will rise dramatically due to the accessibility of education, the reduced competition for domestic and foreign employment and the overall progress of the human race..."

In the wake of such mentalities -- with the gap between the "haves and the have-nots" becoming greater and greater -- why not turn to theory in order to mask the true ill-will of your movement? It looks lovely on paper would you not say? Take all moral value out of everything. You guys don't believe in that crap anyhow. Less people means more prosperity right? Why spend to get the poor back to par? they are lost causes in your books; humanity would excel beyond the heavens with more education, more money for important things like "reproductive health services" to keep the numbers in check, funds for the sciences, secular philanthropy, psychology; any and all study in order to cast false light on more reasons to believe we are our own beginning and end. What a grave day that would be gentlemen.

And that, my friends and detractors, is why I don't waste much time addressing pattycakes. One cannot make sense of, or relate to, an addled mind.

Pattycakes,
You are inane---it is worse for the poor if their populations explode--in India, women are having repeated pregnancies just so that they will finally have boy babies--in China they have made sure that the one child they are allowed to have will be a boy--such manipulations are chosen often by the poor--with repeated pregnancies it is the poor who are getting enervated--it is poor women who are getting anemic--all studies have shown, pregnancies, one on the heel of the other are debilitating to moms--also in poor countries pregnancy is a major medical event and women do still still die in child birth--I'd like to turn the tables on you--I believe you are a theocratic plutocrat and just like those in the Vatican you want numbers in your ignorant church that uses moral principles as masquerades but practices closet "sin" and you want a large labor force to do the dirty jobs you won't soil your hands doing long term, so you can sit on your butt and enjoy yourself --I want the resources in the Third World, where I have lived for a long time, to be stretched so the poor who are struggling for a little firewood and kerosene to cook their food will not find themselves without a supply--I want the already here to enjoy a certain quality and quantity of life--I don't endorse hypercapitalism, but I do endorse private enterprise, the type practiced by the women of Bangladesh, supported by the Grameen Bank--it is you who has assumed I am immoral or that I endorse the demise of millions yet to be born, so I can enjoy an overabundance of resources, spurred by my rapaciousness. A lot of garbage Pattycakes--you have obviously never lived in developing nations--on your American and Catholic throne you sit and mouth off some damn meaningless pieties about population control being the equivalent of mass extermination and the motivations of people who advocate population control as driven purely by greed. All along Robert Littel has been railing against the capitalists of health care and you have emphatically come out in favor of private enterprise driven health care versus government run health care--now because I have said that capitalism is one system that can provide jobs--you accuse me of greed? That is because the only capitalism you know of is the corporate kind--but capitalism flourished in places like Rome and India well before the greedy corporatists raised their flags in the modern West--the capitalism in the Third World today, is that of small and even smaller businesses, individual and inventive enterprises, bazaars and souks run by resourceful ordinary folks--it breaks even or produces a livelihood with a little profit--it bears no resemblance to the kind of capitalism you accuse me of espousing so I can live in luxury myself--for all the reasons I have quoted, the leaders of the Third World do not agree with your ilk--they know they have to provide for the millions in their nations--they have seen famine, hunger and disasters that have wiped off millions from their parts of the world. Your lackadaisical explanations and your Catholic screed against me or Littel don't hold water in the face of the facts and coming from a man who will endorse breeding as the moral thing to do because it is the will of god you should be given little credence. Birth control being the equivalent of extermination is theater of the absurd and I am not surprised, that on these blogs you are the major clown dancing to that absurdity.
Ravensfan Anon

Rfan Anon - My apologies for coming across as an activist for corporate greed or a theocratic plutocrat. I would like more than anything to find common ground on which to understand your thought.

I see eye-to-eye with you and Littel as per the fact the current health system needs to change -- more so with you not because you see the situation clearly for what it is, but because you would strategically approach the solution with more regard to the big picture -- Robert is either naive or blind in his sweeping responses. I strongly agree that the wealth needs to be brought to the developing and third-world nations for the benefit of those nations; not for organizational profit as some "global do-gooders" have been noted for. I have not lived in any third world nations as you have have. I have seen the dark side of our own contiguous North American slums, both urban and rural, including Mexico. Dire struggle is not all that far south, east, west or north. Objectively speaking, I do not know first hand what you have experienced (Africa? Asia? India?) though, and I'm sure you have come out humbled and wiser for it. You have been there Rfan Anon. This is why I am so confused as to your demeanor towards belief and establish religions. To some of these poor people, belief is what gets them through the day. Of all people -- it would be you Rfan Anon -- who I would least expect such lack of understanding from. What happened to you? I mean, I know others in the line of work who have been afar to bring infrastructure and education to these remote lands, only to be moved to tears at the resilience and joy of these humans -- in less than terrible poverty -- actually experience hatred at their own ignorance and lack of understanding. What has been the driving force at work in these lands when they have all but nothing to hope for? Family? Respect? Honor? Survival? do I dare say... Faith in forces unseen? Could it be the total opposite? probably not. You can't get far without goodness somewhere.
So why then do we differ so greatly Rfan Anon? I say faith has it's merits, you say it doesn't. We both want change for the better. How do we get there? What block is there -- what hurdle do you need to get over to empathize with "believers"? You could switch the question for myself also -- what am I not seeing in your arguments for a secular, humanistic paradigm?

Sorry Robert, you have bought in hook-line and-sinker to your dogmas. You wouldn't understand if I was able to spell it out for you in a 5000 pg. thesis. The sad reality is the logic I haven't been able to communicate yet is the "common sense not so common" in your corner.

pattycakes - 5000 pages of the convoluted pap you so freely spew out, would drive me to put a pistol in my mouth and pull the trigger. Never have I seen anyone who types so much and says so little. You remind me of the students who used to pad out what they wrote on their term papers with nonsense because they didn't have a clue what they were trying to say, thinking, somehow, that if they could bore me to death, maybe I wouldn't have the strength left to fail them. They were, and you are, wrong..........F minus for you.

Robert Littel - No takes a back seat to you and Ravensfan Anon when it comes to writing a lot and saying nothing of value. You remind me of those professors who tried to hide their ignorance with arrogance in the hope no one would figure out how truly devoid of knowledge they really were. Like them the only person you are fooling is yourself. The rest of us already know you are an empty barrel making a lot of noise.

BTM2 - I had to track down the 157 posts on this thread to see if you had offered anything to the debate beside your ad hominem attack, out of the blue. I don't recall ever seeing your moniker posted before, so your motivation has the be questioned. You obviously just jumped in to make a childish comment and disparage my and Ravensfan Anon's character, without contributing anything to the discussion. You fail too, peasant.

I have been ranting quite a bit of late haven't I? Sorry man, I get carried away sometimes. Since this is an abortion themed forum, maybe we should bring it back full circle. We have deviated from our topic slightly. Once again, I shall try and spell out the reasoning for the condemnation of abortion.
Being human, we differ from other beings in our physical, spiritual, and intellectual capacities. This is a universal reality which cannot be ignored or underestimated. The proof is self-evident and acknowledging our uniqueness is fundamental in the understanding of our purpose on earth. Once we establish that we ARE special in our humanity, then we are open to the REALITY of our "specialness". If we do not see we are purposeful, intellectual, spiritual beings, then everything else makes no sense. It is a structured realization.
In our humanity, we have been challenged with ULTIMATE right and wrong; good and evil. This is also universal and has manifested it's byproducts throughout history in figures of authority, world leaders, law-makers, and everyday people. While "right" and "wrong" could be subjective in a sense, the deeper roots of "good" and "evil" are not. Something which is inherently evil for you, SHOULD be evil for everyone IF we have a mechanism by which to measure. Going back to my first point -- our "spiritualness" as part of our whole being -- is a reality. Spiritual contemplation, "quiet-time" or "prayer" could lead us to this. If there is any question on a spiritual reality, one could simply use the "natural law" defined as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.
How do we measure this right and wrong? Again, an ultimate good, an ultimate evil. This lack of education is one of the major hindrances to global stability today. Why do we all not share this same measuring system?
We realize that we are unique, we find in our humanity -- tendencies, urges, habits -- all of which we can keep in check with our intellect. Now we have the ability to acknowledge our actions, determine if they are right or wrong, use our mind to act accordingly, and reap the consequences of our decisions. If we choose right, we tend to experience positive and good things. Conversely, if we choose wrong, we experience the negative repercussions of such decisions. The time horizon on these experiences can vary depending on the context of our decisions -- an example is putting our hand on a hot stove... we feel the burn immediately; if we choose not to go to work for a week, the consequences may wait until the next time we go into the office. Using our mind to form our conscience is something which must be practiced in order to make sound decisions for the better. This should be formed in accordance with right vs wrong.
When we have formed our morals and values, they should be weighed against an absolute. For some it is a "Creator" or God. For persons who do not believe in the spiritual, they must be in accordance with natural law. It is really simple at this level which is why it is an accepted universal "code" (i.e. random killing is ending life unnaturally and is wrong). Therefore, you do not need to be a spiritual or even religious person to realize what abortion is; preventing the birth of a human organism by intentionally terminating a pregnancy. Nothing in nature would suggest otherwise that this is good. It is not good. It is wrong and by all accounts evil. When we keep it that simple, it is amazing how clear the air becomes.

When you can simply open your mind to the natural goodness of mammalian (human specific) birth, you realize that this is crucial to the carrying on of our species, the moral formation of society, the end to selfishness, the end to greed, the end to prejudices, the end to female abuse, the end to male abuse, the end to religious indifference, the end to pride, the end to all un-natural wrong doings. No argument by any pro-choice representative even comes close to justifying the termination of a birth. They have no grounds to make their argument other then "it is the woman's choice". What does that mean? What merit does that hold? What goodness does that spawn? None, zero, zilch... only a temporary fix to a inconvenient situation which could have been the genesis of a wonderful new creation. Better get on that horn and thank your mom she had more moral substance than you Littel.

I have finally reached the point where I can take about as much of pattycakes as I can take of Glen Beck. I've tried to watch his show, but two minutes in I just have to get away from it. Now pattycakes has achieved a tolerance level of two sentences before I want to gag. He/she/it is too much to make myself have to endure. I'll bet some of those who share her peculiar beliefs drop off after a paragraph, but that might be due to the lack of attention span among people so shallow they can get truth out of a mountain of fairy-tales and lies. I am amazed that someone can say so much without saying anything meaningful. We can be thankful that Clay is not so wordy too.

Robert Littel - You are right I hadn't responded before but read enough or yours and your buddy's posts to realize that ad hominem attacks are pretty much all you do. It didn’t take long to figure that out. I'm not really sure how it's possible to disparage something you have not demonstrated you possess. There is no point in wasting time discussing anything with an ignorant, arrogant fool who dismisses and attacks all possible ideas but their own. The very fact you doggedly defend a system that economically has failed to keep costs down every where else it’s used and still maintain it will work here pretty much says all anyone needs to know your logical thought process.

MERRY CHRISTMAS ROBBIE!!

I wish you and yours a blessed and fruitful holiday.

BTM2 - Well, as long as you are comfortable being an unpaid shill for a system that is practicing premeditated bean-counter slide-rule murder, all to make already rich stockholders richer, who am I to criticize?

BTM2, I can't believe you read any of my actual posts--have you read anything I wrote about health care buddy? Anyway Robert Littel, has contributed quite a lot to the conversation here--he has pungent ideas but the man is well ahead of his times and naturally he is exasperated by the all around ignorant and blind belief in religion that a perfectly intelligent man or woman like Pattycakes seems to profess.
Pattycakes I see that you went off one more time on a tangent about god belief and abortion and so on and so forth--you know my take on that--you can take the zygote out of the mom and save it for an unforeseen and dark future but you are going to find it mighty difficult to do this if the fetus has not hit viability--you can force every mom in the US to carry her child to term or so you think you can but your attempts will fail. The moms cannot be taken out of the equation--ditto for the dads and they will make their decisions about their babies before viabilty as they see fit without inviting big fat moralizing Catholic you into their bedrooms--you are going to have to swallow this bitter pill--call it what you will-- homicidal population control or homicidal depopulation--name it anything you want to--it is a reality and the law of the land. The population of the world needs to be controlled in order that the poor will not become poorer. You may think that is redundant because the poor believe in a divinity and are more fortunate than the rich in being happy--this myth invented by the comfortably off to assuage their conscience is just that-- a myth----circus clowns laugh but nothing prevents them from sinking into high dudgeon. Are you recommending poverty because the poor are happier and are richer by virtue of fact they seem to laugh more? Get over it--the poor may laugh but in this country as all over the world--they are economically insecure, stressed out, obese, hypertensive, diabetic and they also die early. You call this happy? Completely insane as Littel has described it. So you think it is OK for the population of the world to overflow because even if the poverty rate climbs. even if the resources are stretched, the poor are happy, la di da, what the heck, a bit more poverty here, a bit more disease there that should not make one whit of difference. Pattycakes--are you sure your brain is not getting filled with pattycakes of mud? This is how the rich whites tried to convince the blacks that slavery was OK. You are happy--they told the blacks--if you are not--go find a way to be happy in your misery--then they turned around and salved their conscience by telling themselves that blacks actually didn't have it too bad as slaves--in fact, what do you know they may even be having a great time being
slaves. Ditto for the higher castes in India, who told the untouchables, that if they shut their mouths and remained compliant untouchables, then in their next births they will return as higher caste Brahmins--this I call wickedness and in your Catholic zeal Pattycakes, you seem to be subscribing to a form of it when you advocate population increase, in the face of poverty and argue that poverty itself ain't half bad as long as it is the result of prevented abortions and a higher birth rate--two inherently good things in your book-- and I guess in the clueless bachelor boys of the Vatican you have your best allies and friends. BTM2 you are a stone thrower of the worst kind--you have not read any post completely--you just decided to appear on the scene and thump your Herculean chest for attention--and when Robert Littel excoriated you, you decided to retaliate in kind. What is it you object to? Do you think population increase is a good thing? I realize you don't like the health care reform on the table--neither do I--neither does Robert Littel--he wants a single payer system--the profit motive out and I actually think in that he is right--it is disgusting that the insurers are getting to be fat cats on the backs of the sick--but whether the government has the moral fiber to be incorruptible and run a decent health care system without bankrupting us all--my doubts are about that. Here we've had a vigorous discussion--but tit for tat won't cut it BD2. Robert Littel has expressed himself clearly and then harangued--you have harangued and not expressed yourself on any of the issues at hand. You want to be taken seriously? Forget it--go eat your Christmas goose, have a merry one and be back for ROUND 2, in 2010 pal. Happy New Year. Happy new Year Robert--thanks for some lovely laughs and your astringency. Great new year to you Pattycakes and have a merry one, O advocate for all things I loathe. Have a great new year Ravensfan wherever you may be. And to Matthew Brown--I salute you for being an inveterate blogger, for putting out some of the most interesting things I have read anywhere and for promoting invigorating dialogs I have participated in. Have a great 2010.
Ravensfan Anon