If this idiot is able to push through his clearly religiously centered position on abortion on all of us, in violation of the Separation Principle, then we should market bundles of wire coat-hangers, or knitting needles, to be used by desperate women to self abort, and market them as a "Stupak".

Or a Littel Helper (TM)

Robert - You never did actually prove your violation of the Establishment Clause claims. Last time I asked you never actually responded with anything.

ravensfan - Sorry, but you are not going to lead this discussion away from the focal point. Religion must not be allowed to dominate what are, and what are not, our rights under The U.S. Constitution and the secular society it was created to ensure.

Robert - Leading the discussion away? By asking you to actually provide credible support for your accusation? For someone who demands proof from from others you sure seem to feel as though your beliefs don't require any. I'll repeate it you are wrong the Constitution is no being violated. If you don't agree prove it. Make a credible arguement for a change. Prolife is not a religion or religious concept simply because many religions support it. It's the abortionist who try and lead the discussion away from the REAL ISSUE of when does life really begin.

ravensfan - The questions you ask do not merit an answer. No matter what is provided, it is never enough for you and never will be. Your goal is to denigrate opponents of delusionalism by insinuation and focusing on minutia in an effort to mute the message, and by doing so, make your unsupportable position seem to be relevant. It may fool people who sympathize with your superstitious beliefs, but they are easily entertained anyway, as long as its kept simple.

Robert – Opponents of delusionalism? In this case you’re the deluded one. You’ve deluded yourself into violations that don’t exist. It's not that the question doesn’t merit an answer it's you don't have one. You can't actually support your claims so you resort to your old standby or appeals to ridicule and attack the person to attempt to deflect from the fact your claims have no factual basis. All I wanted was for you to try and support your claims of violations of the constitution. You are actually pretty predictable make an unfounded accusation then when challenged you attack the person or concept. Your response was pretty much exactly what I expected.

To both ravensfan and Robert Littel - stop arguing. It is a belief system that is at question here. Whether it is religious (as mine is) or secular; it is belief that we are discussing. One side believes that abortion is a "right" and the other side believes that abortion is murder. Let the people vote. Pro-life and pro-abortion candidates are all over the place. But please, let's not stoop to calling each other names. That's great for elementary school kids, but not educated adults in a news paper editorial section.

Rev. Tim Lehmann - In a secular society we do not vote as to whether a religious doctrine should be imposed on those who do not share those archaic beliefs. If a religionist doesn't want to have an abortion because it offends their beliefs, then they should chose to NOT HAVE ONE. This is NOT debatable, NOT negotiable, and if its allowed, then those imposing this absurdity, better take out a lot of fire insurance on their churches, because there are a lot of women out there who are going to be pissed to the wall over having religion make them second class citizens, whose function is to breed at the pleasure of a stinking male priesthood.

Rev. Tim - I wasn't aware asking someone to prove an allegation true was considered arguing. I don't expect Robert to actually do it because he can't. You are also wrong it's more than simply a beief system or I'd have t agree with Robert with respect to abortion. The REAL issue is when does human life begin and be accorded full protetcion under the law. Both sides seem to avoid that point.

ravensfan - The point at which we consider a fetus to be a full Human being worthy of the protection of the state, is NOT to be determined from a religious perspective, because it would mean the imposition of a religious doctrine on the totality of society. Your efforts to construct a rationale outside of religious purview that would still support your religious position and allow it to be imposed on all, or at least create a doubt that such an action is not a disallowed intrusion on the rest of us, is dishonest.

Robert - I never said it should be determined from a religious perspective. You seem to be the one trying to make it a religious issue. Abortion is not simply a religious doctrine as you try and make it. When human life begins is as much a scientific and legal question as well. That’s the only point relevant here. I suspect the Catholic Church will never change its views. Those views only apply to Catholics and not the population at large. You can’t or won’t discuss the real issue so instead you resort to calling me dishonest. Of course like most of your opinions it lacks any reasonable, logical or credible support.

ravensfan - If you are going to do exactly what I accused you of doing in the previous post, and then in the same breath deny it, then there is no common ground on which we can converse, because you are nuts.

Robert - I'd really enjoy seeing you explain and support that post. Since I never said where I think it should be determined under the law only where the Church draws the line that last post was nothing more than a boldfaced lie on your part. You also see, to operate under the flawed view that just because an opinion may be the same as a religion’s that means it’s determined from a religious perspective. You hate religion so much that you can’t even accept the fact that it is possible for both religion and the secular law to agree on points without violating the constitution. You really are like the atheist version of Clay.

ravensfan - There is not one secular argument against abortion that can be put forth, that can be definitive enough to counter the argument of those who believe in freedom of choice. The opinions of both sides carry EQUAL weight, because there is no secular argument that raises the status of the fetus to the point where women should be forced to carry them to term against their will.

The only argument that could trump freedom of choice would be one that establishes a special undeniable status for the fetus and to do that, it is necessary to make it sacred, and sacred is a condition that derives from religious belief, which CANNOT be imposed on those who do not hold religious beliefs, or on those who do, for that matter. In the secular state, religion cannot be imposed using the coercive power of the state, no matter how badly you may want it, or no matter how you twist your argument. Your attempt to create a secular rationale to buttress your desire to assuage your delusional beliefs and achieve their goals is transparent and short of convincing anyone that you are operating as anything but a theocratist fool.

Robert,

Here are some atheists who disagree with you.

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

Don't insult anyone's intelligence by saying something like all true atheists are pro-abortion.

Abortion is not simply the religious issue you wish to make it. You like many others don't want to discuss the real issue. It's much easier to bury your head in the sand and pretend that the real issue isn't when human life begins/

Robert - That was me on that post about prolife atheists.

ravensfan - The post had your familiar stink attached to it. I stand on my position regarding the weight of opinions on the question of when a fetus becomes a person, and your continuing effort to apply a sacred nature to them when there is no supporting information on the possibility that anything can be sacred without attributing it to mythical made-up god concepts. An Atheist can believe that a fetus is a person at the moment of formation, but that opinion does not have enough weight to make their perception superior to those who would be most affected, a woman who does not want to be forced to breed against her will.

Robert - You never have explained how determining when human life begins is applying a sacred nature to the discussion. That is unless you consider science sacred The fact that some atheist believe it at an earlier point than you would seem to make your constant insistence that any sacred nature is involved. Drop the breeding against her will nonsense. Unless a woman is raped she was not forced into anything. You keep trying to use that same old propaganda over and over to avoid the issue of when life begins because is you realize your idea of unlimited abortion is flawed. That’s why you blow smoke about sacred issues in an attempt to avoid having to admit that in all possibility that human life begins sometime after conception, but before the doctor smacks a bottom as you claim.