Why don't Dems discuss abortion in terms of freedom of religion???

[Gloria]

This has griped me for years, I wrote a letter to NARAL years ago and got no response...and the Miers thing, with the far right groups wanting CERTAINTY that she will do what they want in overturning Roe v Wade, brings it to my again...

So, the RW, religious-fundies esp. want no abortions, for whatever reason they say....murder? Against God's will? Morality? Whatever they say, doesn't matter that much, the point is there reason is tied to their religious beliefs.

Over the years, there's been a helluva a lot of pandering to this crowd, first amont the GOP, and now the Dems.

But in the meantime...other religions don't view it the same way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a reform Jew would say life begins at birth and the life of the mother is paramount. There are various beliefs all across the spectrum of Christian churches. Then there are the Buddhists, the Muslims, etc. And let's not forget people who don't believe in any religion and then the outright atheists...

So, the point is...why does abortion always have to be framed within the expectations/demands of one particular group of one particular religion?? If abortion becomes illegal and if we're still fighting this in the states, at what point do other religions get recognized?? If I'm a reform Jew, why should the court rule in a way that favors Christian fundamentalism over what I believe and what I want to follow in terms of making a decision???

I mentioned this a few weeks ago to the aide in Reid's office when I called about the Roberts nomination and it was like it never would have crossed his mind....Well, why DOESN'T it cross the Democrats' minds???

[Xipe Totec]

1. Because those who would agree are already on our side.

Those who disagree don't want freedom of religion, they want to impose their religion on others.

So it's not really an argument; it's preaching to the choir.

(religious pun intended).

[MisterLiberal]

32. I have the perfect solution:

Start our own religion.

The Democratic Religion.

At that point, we can set our own standards instead of having to play by their rules.

[neidermeyer]

33. Simple really

,,, being a democrat in todays world means freedom FROM religious influence ,,, if the Constitution is a "living document" then so is the Bible or Koran or Torah ,, being formable like a lump of clay destroys any meaning they have , they can always be twisted to reverse their meanings ... we can't do anything to raise up religion in the context of being a societal norm.

[johnaries]

2. The fundies don't believe in freedom of religion.

They want a theocracy. However, the fundies are actually in the minority, so your strategy may work for the silent majority of Christians.

[AX10]

3. Bingo!

:kick:

:bounce:

[Gloria]

5. Well, that's sort of the point....appeal to more mainstream people

in the most basic of ways, and also motivate people in groups who feel put upon by all this religious fundy stuff....

[dchill]

29. Honest to God!

That is a hell of a slogan!

[sandnsea]

4. Kerry tried

He said he couldn't legislate his religion, Democrats said it was too confusing.

[Gloria]

6. But those words are too abstract...you gotta point to someone and

say, "Hey, this country is supposed to offer you freedom of religion, but it looks like one group is being favored...It affects your life if you ever are in the position where you have to make a decision about your health; or what your kid is being taught in school....etc etc.

I mean, don't you think that at some point going back to the basics of what the Constitution sets up is important, not so much in legal terms which have twisted it all up, but in common sense "back to basics" just to restore some equilibrium to this country?? What the hell this country was supposed to be about??? Hell, we might as well go back to being under the King at this point...

I need to hear Mario Cuomo on this. Cuomo was always so eloquent on this subject....we lack a serious, eloquent speaker these days....

[sandnsea]

12. Abstract?

Catholicism does not believe in abortion under any circumstance and I can't legislate that???? That is not abstract. Sorry, the right wing smear machine sent out their talking points and Democrats bit, as per usual. As long as that happens, the best strategy ever imagined will fail.

[napi21]

7. I think they should fight it by saying

everyone has the right to make their own decision, and our Gov't has NO RIGHT to interfere. I repect the right of the fundies to believe abortion is wrong, and those who have one will go to hell. My objection is that they believe they can force everyone else to abide by their beliefs.

There was an interesting theme on the "Reba Show" last night. Everyone tried to force Van to go to church with them, and he refused, saying he didn't believe in God. Reba threatened him saying she was going to put him in the ground, Barbara Jean beat him with her bible, Cheyenne threatened him. They all ended up talking to the preacher, who told them you CAN'T force someone to believe in God!

The moral of the show was to show everyone that you can explaine your beliefs to people, and the reasons you believe as you do, but YOU CAN'T FORCE THOSE BELIEFS ON ANYONE!

I thought it was a great way to get that message across. The show is a great comedy, and having them include this message was a great idea!

[welshTerrier2]

8. i'm "somewhat" troubled by this approach

i haven't given your point much thought but here are my initial impressions ...

it seems to me that the primary argument with issues that involve considerations of morality and values needs to insist on the separation of church and state ... those choosing a position based on their religious values are welcomed to do so as long as they don't try to impose their views on secular society ... and even if they were ever to comprise a majority, individual liberties protected by our Constitution should be the ultimate guideline of the policy ...

women should not have a right to choose primarily because they are exercising their religious freedoms, they should have the right because our Constitution gives them that right and protects them from those who disagree based on their right to privacy ... in the end, I see the rationale for freedom of choice deriving from a civil protection rather than a religious one ...

i would not conclude, however, that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive ... perhaps the unique point you've raised should be added to the more commonly espoused civil justifications such as the right to privacy ...

using freedom of religion as a primary justification is weaker in cases where a woman may not believe in any religion ... and she should be afforded the same protections as women of religious conviction ...

[Gloria]

9. That's why I mentioned people who have no religion or who are

atheists--that having other beliefs forced on them, even those who have no religious beliefs--is an unacceptable situation....

Beliefs exist with or without religion...and to impose one "standard of belief" on a whole society is simply unrealistic and unacceptable. You see that in the division that ensues....

How about this....no laws governing abortion, it's strictly between a woman and a doctor. It's been like that in our past history...why not now??

[Baconfoot]

13. I consider atheism to be a religion just like any other.

And that is the way the law ought to view atheism as well.

The only difference between atheism and other religions is the assigment of truth values to religious claims. The atheist will likely assign "FALSE" to any religious claim, whereas the non-atheist will likely assign "TRUE" to a larger set of claims. Any given non-atheist, however, will still assign "FALSE" to the bulk of existing and possible religious claims due to large number of existing and possible sets of organized and nonorganized religions. THe difference in percentage of claims assigned the value "FALSE" is negligible.

We need a clear distinction between religious and non-religious claims in the political arena.
I don't claim to have such a way to distinguish but it seems that one sufficient (though not necessary) condition on being a religious claim would be that it could not even in principle be supported by scientific evidence. If such a claim is required to justify restrictions on abortions in, say, the first month, then the restriction should be unconstitutional.

[gumby]

22. What are you saying?

I've always considered the claim that 'atheism is a religion' to be a hallmark of the right-wing.

Your claim that "The atheist will likely assign "FALSE" to any religious claim," seems overreaching and untrue to me. There are many instances where 'religion' and 'secular society' overlap.

For instance, the 'religious' dictate that 'thou shall not kill' is clearly accepted in law by 'secular society.'

[renie408]

31. Atheism is not a religion

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1)Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2)A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3)The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4)A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
5)A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

That is WAY not atheism, which denies the existence of the divine. I am really not sure what all the 'sets and subsets' stuff was about, but that part I do know.

Atheists and religious people can agree on a certain code of moral behavior, but for different reasons. Atheists can agree based on behavior that allows society to run smoothly and lawfully and based on what is 'right' when it comes to how we as human beings treat each other. A religious person may agree because it is called for by his religion and is key to getting the goodies after death. When you think of it like that, who is more moral? The atheist who behaves morally simply because it is right or the religious zealot who behaves morally to abide by his religion?

**edited because it is damn late and I am too tired to make sense**

[Baconfoot]

38. I have been an Atheist ever since I was 6.

I think it's a religion because the claims it makes are ABOUT religious things.

The sentence "A" and the sentence "It is not the case that A" are on the same subject regardless of what you plug in for A.

Let's say I plug in "There is a God" for A.
A and ~A have the same subject matter. Or in other words, a belief that A is true or that A is false, are just different beliefs about the same thing.
An atheist CAN have a belief ABOUT the divine that it does not exist.

[Baconfoot]

39. You are misunderstanding me. Also, a command is not a claim.

Thou shalt not kill is a command, not a claim.

"Murder is immoral" is a claim.

Now let's see what an atheist might say about this.
We have an atheist readily available - me.

I say that the claim that murder is immoral is true.

Now there is a FURTHER question as to what the justification of that claim is - Does the justification for the claim have to be religious in nature or not?

I, claim that the justification for THAT claim is NOT religious in nature.

However, some claims are such that there justification MUST be religious in nature.

I think that an example of such a claim is:
"The state should treat as murder the performing of an abortion in the first month."

Someone might think atheism is a religion because it requires faith or because there's no evidence for it. That's NOT why I consider it a religion. I consider it a religion because of its SUBJECT matter. And I actually do think there is some room for an atheist to assign "true" to some religious claims, which you should see if you read my above post more carefully.

[Baconfoot]

10. For what it's worth I agree with you Gloria.

It isn't even in principle possible for science to discover good evidence that a fetus is worth protecting regardless of the potential mother's wishes *prior to the development of the physical structures necessary for consciousness and perhaps or perhaps not self-awareness.

Now someone might want to substitutes something different for * into the above sentence, but regardless I think there will be for each person a point where they would say well science couldn't even in principle discover the required evidence to justify protecting a fetus regardless of the wishes of the potential mother.

But it is still possible to believe that the fetus has some feature or property which would justify such protection.

And that is a spiritual matter.
We have amendments about legislating about these type of things.

I'm sure, however, that there is a good reason to protect choice via right to privacy however I haven't seen one I have bought into. And in the long term a right's being found to be part of an enumerated right should give that right more solid footing than an being found to be part of an unenumerated one.

So I'm curious as to what people will post in response to the OP here.

[dbonds]

11. I still think it comes down to privacy and a medical decision.

This is a discussion only between you and your doctor. It concerns you and your health. People may not agree with your decision but it is none of their business.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

14. Can I play devil's advocate for a while?

Let's say you opposed involuntary euthanasia because you felt it was murder, even though it was legal. It might or might not be a religious belief. If you saw people being "put to sleep" because they were not wanted, you might indeed take to the streets in protest.

I see the same situation with abortion. Yes, a number of religions have declared it murder, but I believe that there are quite a number of people who simply believe that life begins at conception for either common sense (their interpretation) or scientific (again their own interpretation) reasons.

Therefore, I don't think we can use the freedom of religion defense for abortion rights. If we did, then we would also by logic have to support religiously imposed female circumcision, etc.

I have always had a certain respect for abortion opponents because I believe they are acting on their deeply held principles, religious or otherwise. (I have the same respect for anti-war protesters, as well) I don't happen to agree with them completely, and one of the reasons I don't is because I am savvy enough to comprehend the subservient status of women in many subcultures that also lead to this attitude towards abortion.

But when you truly believe you are witnessing murder, day after day, then I guess you feel you have to do something about it and again, I understand that. I don't share it, but I understand.

[seejanerun]

20. Some of them are the kind of idealists you describe.

You can tell who they are by the other things they do--belief in prenatal care for all, social services for families, etc.

I think for most anti-choice people, though, the issue is control of women. Look at the history of the word: the first thing the invaders do is rape the women. Of course, the tendency to subjugate women is more subtle in the U.S. than it is in many countries. We just lie to poor women about their family planning options and deny the morning-after pill to rape victims. Watch what happens with that new anti-cervial cancer vaccine--some people want to withhold it from minors. I guess they think cervical cancer is just punishment for having premarital sex!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

26. Yes, I agree with your entire response.

[BlueCaliDem]

21. I Am Against Euthanasia--Voluntary or INvoluntary for this reason...

Euthanasia is an act by which someone outside yourself thinks it's best you go now. It's what we decide for our beloved pets when they are terminally ill (voluntarily), or are so injured that to keep them alive would be inhumane and torturous (involuntarily).

We need to understand, that according to science, most animals aren't aware of their mortality. They don't understand it.

We as humans do, therefore we don't need our physician, or spouse, or child to tell us "when it's time to go". We have a brain, and we're aware of our mortality. In the case of Schiavo, this was euthanasia, because she was being kept alive artificially and incapable to telling anyone to give her back her dignity, and good christians know that the decision her husband made was one he, in accordance with Christian beliefs, was allowed to make, and take responsibility for. True Christians should've understood, and accepted that.

Death with Dignity is a better term for those who don't want to prolong a life that's going to be cut short. Pharmaceutical companies DO want you to prolong that life to milk whatever they can out of you before you go, but I believe that when you're sound of mind, and knowing your life's gonna be cut short through no fault of your own, you should have the choice to leave on your terms--not Congress's or anyone else's, for that matter, well-intentioned, or not.

Same with abortion. It's the choice of the woman. It's between her, her God/Goddess and her physician, and if the relationship is as it's supposed to be with her husband, his as well.

It's not the decision by people who could care less about you; who aren't going to be there to help you one way or the other, and who are usually pro-death penalty no matter the faulty legal system we have; pro-war, because of a perceived threat from outside, and pro unrestrained gun ownership--knowing these things were invented to KILL life.

I loathe to call them "pro-life" because of their inconsistent views of "life", and the hypocrisy with which they wrap themselves in christian values that are contrary to the founder of christendom--Christ himself.

So, although you are generous, and kind in attempting to understand these people's views, I'm not. I refuse to understand them, as they refuse to understand, that they are being blatant hypocrites with their anti-abortion views; wearing a badge on their puffed out chest of "Pro-Life" while in all truth, and in other areas, they are everything BUT.

On the other hand, if a person is truly "pro-life", i.e., anti-guns, anti-war, anti-death penalty, anti-poverty as well as anti-abortion then I have nothing but the deepest respect for them, but among the anti-right-to-choose crowd, I bet I'd count those precious few--IF they exist--on a single hand alone.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

27. Yes, it is the folks in your last paragraph

I am referring to. I actually know quite a few through my church which is all the things you list. I belong to the Episcopal Church. They are all different, but mine is very liberal.

While most of the women are pro-life, few of them are active in the movement legally. It is just part of their world view. Mine is a bit more open when it comes to abortion. I am saddened when they are necessary, but I know the are sometime necessary.

[BlueCaliDem]

28. You Should Count Yourself Lucky You Know These Good People

...and I can understand now, why you can understand the view of some opponents of abortion.

Because they're really pro-life, and care for ALL life--with no restrictions--and they are the real thing.

Too bad the disingenuous crowd of so-called pro-lifers have given those you know (the REAL pro-lifers) such a bad stigma.

I myself have never met one, but then again, I don't travel a whole helluva lot outside the Calfornia borders, and I don't belong to any religion, although--I feel I need to disclose--I am a spiritual Christian.

But as I've stated in my former post--I have the deepest respect for those who are consistent pro-life across the board.

Good people.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

30. Indeed they are good people

I have to say that the Catholic church probably comes closest in my mind to satisfying most of those "pro life" standards, with their anti-war, abortion and death penalty stances. If they could just get straight with their issue on gay folks I might be tempted to join!

But I can never in honesty rail against abortion because although I am a grannie, I am not past the point where it is unthinkable and while I would sorrow mightily and remember it with pain all my life, I would not carry a child at this age, for either its sake, or more importantly, mine. My health would not allow it. So I want that right.

Do I feel it is murder? Yes, I think so. But is there ever a case for justifiable murder? Yes, I believe so. I know my father had a living will that he not be kept alive by any artificial means and when we stopped swallowing (dementia) we withheld IV fluid and a feeding tube. Those were 11 difficult days. Murder? Perhaps. But the only thing we could do. I hope the universe looks as kindly on our decision. I am also right now not intervening at all with my terminally ill alcoholic system who has been in detox four times in the past four months, and this last time got so low in potassium her heart stopped in detox. And she is drinking again and I am doing ... nothing. I have done interventions three times and the ambulance and rehab for 30 days and it is time to let the disease run its course. Life issues are so hard

Sorry I rambled. Today was difficult.

[BlueCaliDem]

37. After Reading Your Post, I Am Convinced, You Are too!

Yes, I agree with you that the teachings of the Catholic Church are the most consistent, and yes, it would be nice if the Catholic Church would finally come to realize that being gay was never a life's choice and to stop condemning people because of it.

But even if they did, I wouldn't become a Catholic because as a spiritual christian, I am wholly against the practice of idolatry prominent within their religion, since one of the ten commandments condemns all worship of these things.

I am personally anti-abortion, but not in the sense that I'd want the government to pass laws outlawing this right for others. For me, it's a personal choice, with emphasis on "personal choice", and I am unequivocally pro-women's right to choose, and will always be.

Most Republicans (still a minority in the United States nonetheless) are not so much against abortion, as they are against women gaining equal rights. I believe--and this may be cynical--that they're afraid that women will elevate to the point that they take charge, and perhaps that's the fear behind most of the agenda they try to slip through.

After all, doesn't the saying go: Behind every great man is an even greater woman? ;-)

I'm wary to call honoring your father's last wishes "murder". Murder has such a harsh and negative connotation--and in most cases, justified--but I see the choice you and your family had to make as honoring that, what your father wanted, but that's just my opinion.

As for your sister, I wish you all the best. I can understand how you must be feeling, but she's a grown-up, and adult, and the choices she makes are hers, and hers alone. You've done all you could to steer her into a different, better direction, but it's up to her if she chooses this for herself.

Freedom to choose; free will. Sometimes it's a bitch, but it's also a god-given right. It's her choice, good or bad. As long as you know you've done all you can, and within the scope of your power to help her change, that's about all you can do.

Sometimes we, who love loved ones so deeply, find it hard to just let go, but there comes a time when we have to realize, that it's not our choice, and that forcing an issue usually has the opposite effect.

In my experience, I've had situations wherein I tried so hard to force them to "see the light", so to speak, only to come to the realization, I've angered them, and actually pushed them deeper, and it was always refreshing that, when I stepped back and gave them space, they usually did what was best for them, and things turned out better (sometimes worse, but those cases were extreme) than expected.

Oh, and don't worry. You weren't rambling at all. Thank you for sharing with me your most personal experiences. I'm deeply humbled, and honored that you did.

I wish you, and yours, all the luck in the world with your beloved sister.

[CTyankee]

15. The separation/freedom of religion argument was also included

in some of the Roe arguments made by the prochoice side. The Supreme Court did not bite. That is what I had heard from an attorney who had argued an abortion case (not Roe but another one) before the Supreme Court. I guess the prochoicers, having gotten a victory in Roe, decided not to pursue the sepration/religious freedom theme further.

However, an earlier poster made a good point. What happens to this argument if the woman is an atheist? Atheists can and do bring suits saying that their right not to be subjected to religious beliefs, but these suits are often ridiculed so brutally that it is almost suicide to your point if you bring them. Even moderates that I know are on edge over them ("under God" in the pledge, etc). So it almost looks like a losing argument in the public forum.

Let me just say that I do agree with you 100%, but since I am not religious at all I totally sympathize. I am married to a reform Jew (a convert from mainstream Protestantism of all things). I was brought up mildly Protestant (my father rejected religion due to his militant Baptist preacher daddy).

[Baconfoot]

40. Ah! Thanks. I didn't know that. N/T

[BlueCaliDem]

16. Because the Dems Know that the Majority of Americans...

...don't want ANY change to Roe v Wade.

The only reason why this is "an issue" is because the minority (less than 30% last poll I'd seen) are getting all the air time to keep this alive; coining their stance as "pro-life"--what a joke!--and the corporate right-wingnut fans and talking heads need to keep that "base" happy (cuz they don't give a shit about abortion either way) so the gullible, small-minded with voting power keep voting Repub, and they keep their huge tax cuts.

To me, those who oppose a woman's right to choose have no credibility, because if you're against abortion--then friggin don't have one!! It's that simple.

Their problem is, it's not about that (they could care less too). They just wanna tell people what to do cuz they think they know better. They think they ARE better than everyone else--which is to me, a sure sign of a deranged inferior complex.

Most have either already had abortions themselves or are men who truly believe women are "weaker vessels" (translate: inferior, which is NOT what God meant when he called women "the weaker vessel" and they'd know this if they were truly bible readers)--and devote themselves to telling other people what to do because their OWN lives have NO meaning, and they're insecure, bigotted, idiots that hide behind christianity, so as to garner some degree of respectability and credibility when they darn well know they don't have any!

Their intolerable UNchristian "holier-than-thou" attitudes towards "the lesser among us" should tip us off that they're just the "bad-fruit-from-the-bad-christian-tree" version of the women-hating Taliban men of the Islam tree.

[tocqueville]

17. because religion cannot rule wordly affairs in a secular country

If you start making laws from what people believe in or not you are asking for a lot of trouble. The whole idea is preposterous in a secular country. The churche(s) primary function in a secular society is to provide spiritual guidance to their followers. They can have of course opinions about current affairs but their followers can only express this opinion by voting for certain parties or candidates.

If you start using "freedom of religion" to ALLOW or FORBID something for a group because of their beliefs, you'll soon have a society where people are driving on different sides of the road.

It's a very dangerous approach. Besides abortion isn't a pure religious question.

The right thing to do would be that Congress passes a law that says that abortion is legal (or not) under those and those conditions. Which means that any woman upfilling the conditions can have an abortion. Then those who chose for religious reasons not to do it are free to do it. End of story.

The current state in the US is very dangerous. There is no law in the US (democratic expression of the majority of the people), but a judicial interpretation of "privacy". And everybody knows that those can be more or less easily overturned, specially with a system allowing judges to be chosen for their remaining life.

State and government must be neutral and express the will of the majority. In France if a Jehovahs witness refuses a blood transfusion, the doctor is bound to make it anyway. The right to adequate treatement is a law that supercedes any beliefs. In teh same way it's forbidden to perform a female circumcision, even if it's the will of the person itself.

[welshTerrier2]

18. well said !!

that's what i was trying to say above ...

"freedom of religion" and atheism need to be protected freedoms but they should not be the basis, or at least not the primary basis, for providing civil liberties such as the freedom of choice on abortion ...

[Gloria]

25. As I said, it doesn't have to be a legal argument, but one to

use just to try to waken up some part of some people's brains or hearts. Part of the general, political discourse.

[Baconfoot]

36. Interesting. I will have to think on it.

I'm not sure it's a fair characterization to say that using freedom of religion in the suggested way ALLOWS or FORBIDS something on the basis of religion. The idea seems instead to be quite the opposite of that. THe idea seems to be that NO you cannot allow or forbid something on the basis of religion, but one MUST be doing that if one forbids abortions, say in the first month, because any justification for such a law much have a religious component.

But I will have to think further on your point.

I do think that at the very least there is an important religious component to the abortion argument; one which is very often concealed under, for instance, gigantic blowups of microscopic objects.

[Lexingtonian]

19. sadly, it doesn't quite work

The worship and thinking/talking aspects of freedom of religion are basically the same thing as the right to privacy.

Public aspects of religious practice can be regulated. This is why e.g. cannibalism, human sacrifice, and child marriage aren't legal.

The criteria for what is permissible and what impermissible as public religious practice are basically a matter of what is compatible with 14th Amendment civil rights of everyone involved.

Abortion per se (i.e. if you induced your own or a miscarriage happened) and all things consentual sexual practices are covered by the right to privacy. The right to solicit or provide abortion services is not a private right; the fundamental change in law the Roe v Wade verdict was is that it declared soliciting and providing abortions covered by iirc Due Process rights.

Most people imagine Roe v Wade is a kind of artistic and highly subjective interpretation and application of the Ninth Amendment and that the 'right to privacy' construct is the key idea. Unfortunately, the real controversy is- as everywhere in the Culture War since the verdict in Brown v Board- a matter of whether one chooses to respect the letter and spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment or doesn't.

(The second sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is formally broken up into the Privileges And Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause in jurisprudence. All three clauses are descriptive aspects of the same, larger, idea of sovereign and meaningful citizenship for the individual relative to governmental power, though, and they aren't legitimately separable ideas.)

[AtomicKitten]

23. Paul Hackett had the best response.

He said that the government has no business sticking their nose into our bedrooms and private lives, and that's that. He refused to address the morality of the issue that the fundies always want to impose. It's simply an inappropriate governmental intervention.

[Gloria]

24. Well, it's an interesting discussion....All I can think of is that

we will be in "perpetual war" in this country (forget the perpetal war on "terror") until some very skilled politician can begin to figure out a way to calm things down.

The only other thing I can see are the non-fundies finally getting as in your face as the RW crowd...you know, after years of having pro-choice people called "murderers" sooner or later someone could rightly point at their Becky Bell bracelet (Indiana girl who died, a victim of "parental notification")and accuse the other side of being murderers, as well.

George Bush's legacy, either way, is going to be one of misery. War, of course. But keeping women at third world status all over the globe AND returning women here to that status, as well...

[DemBones DemBones]

34. The more Dems discuss abortion,

the more we lose.

Abortion law is ultimately decided by the courts and the Democrats should leave it there.

The Democrats need to FOCUS on economic issues and not let the GOP distract the voters with the emotional issues such as abortion, prayer in schools, same sex marriage, etc.

Dems need to point out that the GOP TALKS pro-life but doesn't WALK pro-life except to grandstand by banning partial birth abortions and trying to save Terri Schiavo. The courts allowed Schiavo to be put to death and the courts will overturn the ban on partial birth abortions. (And the GOP knows this.)

The courts have ruled that gays have to have equal rights and they'll keep ruling that way. They'll keep ruling against prayer in the schools, the Ten Commandments being displayed in courthouses, and all the other things that the right wants and that are anathema to the left.

The left is WINNING on all the wedge issues and the courts are making it happen. Let the COURTS take the heat since they are making the decisions. FOCUS on what Congress can actually deliver on: a progressive tax struxture: laws to make it financially beneficial for companies to bring jobs back to the U.S., including laws to punish outsourcing, saving and strengthening Social Security and Medicare, etc.

IT'S STILLTHE ECONOMY, STUPID.

[NVMojo]

35. ain't that the truth! VERY GOOD POINT!

[Hidden Stillness]

41. A Mix of Answers

"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
"To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
"To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."
(1 Corinthians 9:20-22)


Abortion is mentioned nowhere in the Bible, and they had herbal abortions then, and Jesus never refers to homosexuality. Most mainstream, mildly liberal Churches and individual Christians take that as a sign that, at the very least, God did not consider either thing to be important or to be the real point, as for example, faith, love, hope and charity are. This is one way of opening the topic. Christians, as a matter of fact, considered "following the letter of the law" in the Bible to be heresy, ("Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." 2 Corinthians 3:6), until the archconservative fundamentalists of the 19th century on; and they did not invent this heresy for theological reasons, but as a secular rejection of a changing society, with the Industrial Revolution, the rise of popular science, etc. Following a prescribed set of opinions, is a modern invention. There are parts of the world, such as the Eastern Orthodox Church, where icons are venerated more than the Book, and for most centuries of Christianity, most people had no Bibles of their own (before printing, etc.), or were illiterate and only heard sermons that quoted from many versions of the Bible.

Another approach is the fact that for many centuries, the early church considered that newborn babies did not have souls yet at all, and if they died, they were meant to. This preoccupation with abortion, "life," etc., is a phony, modern fear of death and hatred of feminism, as abortion rights=women's rights. Most mainstream Christians support the right to choose, and they are ignored. Most find no contradiction, as they consider it a political issue, and as I like to point out, the Protestant rebellion against the corruption of the Popes etc., and the creation of Protestantism, created both Humanism (Erasmus, etc.) and the concept of the secular world. These were Protestant thoughts.

Therefore, another approach is to remind the majority Christian population that archcon fundamentalists are blocking the way for them to witness the way they want, and to approach God and the expression of faith on their own. This anti-liberal is standing between you and God, and pretending to be the mouthpiece of God, and pretending that you are not a real Christian. Pretty offensive all on its own. This reminds me, again, (if the people on this website are an indication), that atheists are completely ignorant of what most Christians are, and I don't just mean the vicious, hateful ones who start thread after thread on General Discussion. Most Christians do not read the Bible anymore, are more "spiritual" than scriptural, and with popular culture so available to people, for generations now, are often a mix of Christian-Buddhist-feminist-Swedenborgian, etc., rather than just Biblical influence. (Just a random example given, meaning that there is a mix of influences nowadays and likely not just one sect of Christianity.) This has been the case for generations now, that people are a lot more casual, and expansive, about where they search to try to find God and meaning.

Another approach on this issue is to do what no one does, and that is to actually refer to the woman. Think of her suffering, alone, abandoned, left with a pregnancy she cannot handle and does not want, maybe poor, maybe a medical condition threatens her, maybe even raped, yet no one helps her. They give orders while the male who was equally culpable, if such a word applies, gets what I call a "male abortion"--that is, "Bye-bye!"--takes off and leaves her with all the burden, and that is just fine with everyone. No one does anything to make this male be responsible--don't tell me you are a "Christian" now; you are just against women. Emphasize that, and all women will be able to recognize things. It sheds a light on the fact that this is not a spiritual institution full of saints, but just another thing that males take over and run--for themselves.

Finally, whenever these people equate "life" with God, and claim that God always wants "life," etc., I like to ask them, Who do you think invented death? God could have invented any system, any way of things, any nature, yet made it so that death waits at the end for all of us. Every single one who lives, will also later die. You claim that not having an abortion and giving birth, gave that child life and saved it from death--yet God Itself will cause the creature's death some day, and none of you will save it then.

Most people do not want the archconservative's idea of ordered society to be passed off as religion, and would like a little more expression of Christian spirit evident instead.