Or you could keep your willy in your pants and legs closed. Why is the assumption that sex is an act that is uncontrollable?

Personal responsibility Bren, if we can't prove people need that, the country might as well give up.

Animals can't help themselves, but people can. We have the ability to reason. Even those who are ignorant know the cost of letting Willy out to play.

You're not wrong, sex is not uncontrollable except in cases of rape, and to a significant degree, coercion. Statistics show that the majority of fathers, in the case of teen pregnancies, are age 18 or over. The courts are overrun with child support cases, paternity issues, etc. In the case of a relative's family friend, the 15 year old daughter was isolated and coerced by an 18 year old. The girl was promised help and support which was not forthcoming. His parents made a few child support payments for their son, then stopped. The young man's employer was complicit in non-compliance of court-ordered wage garnishment and avoidance of contact with the child's mother and attorney. The child is nearly 5 now and thousands of dollars are owed in child support. In this case, the maternal grandparents supported the child (medical and childcare, food, etc.) while the girl finished school. Without that parental support, the girl and child would be destitute, while the father avoids child support, drives a nice car and has a new girlfriend.

This is a story that is told over and over, in one form or another. Put yourself in the position of a 13, 14, or 15-year old, at the impressionable age when the part of the brain that understands the concept of "repercussion" is not fully developed, facing the blandishments of an aggressive older male.

I agree that personal responsibility is important, for males as well as females. Right now the focus and the blame is on females.

JB, the liberal mantra has been;"if it feels good, do it." Bill the taxpayer.

JB. Using words like excuses rather than reasons, rehashing the argument with opposing comments is argumentative not instructive. It leads the thread here, to make it an I'm right you're wrong exchange. No substative ideas. The opposing side is in a defenseive position. If I enter into a discussion and the other person introduces Religion into the conversation, I usually bow out. The certainty of Faith is a non-starter for me. It's creates a 2 subject debate. It instantly negates whatever my insight may be. I find it unfair. I am a person of Faith and I try to keep that out of my discussions regarding a human issue. I may, through my Faith, dislike something, Faith is not the issue. We struggle with abortion. It has gone through the courts all the way to the Supreme Court, they ruled abortion lies within the boundaries of a women's right to privacy . Roe v Wade is a privacy issue not an abortion only issue. I believe in a higher power, I also accept the system we have to resolve our differences. Until the law changes, and not by creating laws that exacerbate the problem by mandating behavior. The Blunt Amendment re: contraception, it didn't make things better by changing the argument to a religious one, it drove a wedge between Americans who hold opposing views on many topics. It creates a schism which goes on to infect all opinions we may disagree on. "Mix Religion with Politics and you get Politics." : Roger Williams. He said that over 400 years ago.

@William
I, nor anyone else on this thread accept you, has injected religion into this argument. Aside from my closing where I say the generic 'pray', which in no way assumes I am saying that God demands we allow all children to live.

I disagree with both abortion and the Supreme Court ruling. I disagree with abortion because I believe it kills a living person. That is based on the scientific fact that life starts at conception. I disagree with the Supreme Court ruling because it is not a law. A law would assume it was passed by an elected legislative body. The ruling was done by non-elected court officials. Abortion should be a states rights issue. Let the people decide whether abortion should be legal.

I am calling out the ideas that post birth abortion cannot be justified on the any grounds. Again not because my religion says so, but because if life is created at conception then anything after that is killing that child. As pointed out above, if a person can be charged with murder by killing a child in utero, our stance becomes do what feels good (keep it if you want otherwise throw it out). That kind of stance on life can only cause societal harm.

@DJ Bradley...The issue concerning when any human life is granted full person status is what the article is about. The medical ethical philosophers are logically discussing, with arguments, that there are arguments to be made about allowing human potential if that human life is not capable of gaining human potential either because of deformity or the mother, family or society's capability to bring that potential to fruition. It's a classic example of moral questions that moral and ethical philosophers discuss all the time. J.B. has jumped the gun on this. I hope you read the article in full.

Sometimes moral relativist position is the proper position to take and you shouldn't feel that you need to be apologetic. There is a strong argument to be made for terminating a life for a greater moral good and society makes these decisions all the time.

@Lyle
If this were strictly an idea brought to the public for discussion, I would agree and would not have bunched my panties as I have. However, this practice already exists in Europe. That removes it from strictly discussion and into a watch and learn category. As the article points out, the leap to post birth abortion isn't really a stretch. My argument is that life loses value the longer you presume it is not viable. That must have an effect on the greater society. The moral good is completely subjective and could make one assume viability is complete subjective at any point in time.

@DJ
Responsibility should be left up to the person? Why is that the stance of liberals when we talk about sex; however, the second I want to apply it to health care, welfare or public employee benefits it should be the business of the government?

@J.B. Schmidt...This is a no consensus argument on when full human potential should be granted. There is consensus that all fertilized human eggs are in fact human, but are they or should they be granted development to potentiality, that is the question. A deeper question is also in the mix, examining the common good of the present population verses the common good of future populations.

All ethical philosophers investigate the areas of human experience and decision making to attempt to chart a course of ethical action when there is not widespread precedence or established ethical values. Obviously this ethical problem was raised from a real life question and set of conditions. I think you can rest assured that there will not be any widespread implementation of this position until it has been thoroughly debated and consensus is reached.

Remove the Religious element and you can get a resolution. One of the barriers in bringing peace to Northern Ireland was the Religious dispute. The moment it was agreed that the priests should stay out of the negotiations, peace was attained. The Certainty of Faith makes compromise impossible. Reverend Santorum's poorly chosen comment about The President of the United States of America and his new theology, was aimed at the wrong target. The disfunction in the Congress is a result of a new theology. Ergo: Nothing real gets done.

@235301...I totally disagree with your statement that there is no moral footing on which to build arguments for women's choice and the termination of pregnancy. The principles and tenets upon which that morality is based may by those that you don't accept. Therefore, the argument comes down to which or who's morality is correct.

Concerning the claim that ti's about who is in power is a valid statement. Where it becomes dicey is when those in power hold a minority view, but because of their position of power they push it through. This is a good definition of rule by tyranny.

You hit the nail right on the head, 235301.

@Lyle: Abortion is arbitrarily determining that a human life isn't worth keeping around. Plenty of examples throughout history and even today where one human being(or group) arbitrarily determines the worthiness of another human being or group.

The ugly truth for many of us is that abortion serves the greater good of society yet is morally abhorrent. I suspect those in the pro-choice or pro-life movements sleep much easier at night because they need not deal with the moral dilemma abortion poses to the rest of us sitting in the middle.

What about the moral dilemma of being against abortion because it robs a child of life, while at the same time vilifying programs that help low income mothers raise their children?

@Bren
Your premise is still that sex is uncontrollable and personal responsibility is an unachievable goal.

Our society has placed everybody as a victim. The pregnant mother is a victim of sex. The low income mother is a victim of birth. Neither is true. Both are victim of their irresponsibility. Except for rape, they both should had to acknowledge the risk. If this were an occasional oops, I might justify supporting it; however, we have millions of abortions and millions of single mother families. I hold the mother and father equally responsible. Our society doesn't, we hold the baby responsible.

J.B., I agree that society holds the baby responsible, and that women and men should be responsible. I find it interesting that many of the same people who are against abortion are also against social programs that help those babies.

@Bren - this is precisely most of the point. I feel like pro-life should really be called anti-choice because pro-choice folks are pro-life who want abortion to be safe, legal and RARE. But for those who are so staunchly against choice, where's the money to raise these unplanned and unwanted kids? Will they adopt them since they so badly want them brought into the world?

I'm not denying the need for responsibility on both sides of this issue, but JB said it perfectly when he said the babies end up paying. So what do we do since we can't mandate common sense?

@Bob - what I meant to type was "mandate good parenting." But in your comment, you are assuming that all women who choose abortion are using it for birth control when that is not the case for the majority. And when you say "verifiable," under who's authority would you place that classification? The police? Do you know how many women don't come forward to report rape and/or sex abuse? To require this report before obtaining an abortion only pushes more women into silence.

I echo Bren - if you aren't willing to pony up and provide the support necessary to get these unplanned and unwanted children to productive adulthood, then can you truly call yourself pro-life? No. You're just anti-choice.

No, that's not at all what I'm assuming, Heather. You're assuming what I mean.

I mean exactly what I said, which I reposted below in reply which is where I should have posted it originally, as it was more applicable to that comment. I'll paraphrase here, again.

Make it available in cases where the life of the mother is threatened or where the sex is verifiably unwanted (as to how it's unwanted, if it's a rape it should be reported as such).

Otherwise if you insist that it be available upon demand, admit that you want the ability to terminate a pregnancy (i.e. kill the baby) as a form of post-coital birth control. And, as I said, if you're honest about what you're doing and why, I fully support your decision. If you choose to hedge it as something other than that, then you're not dealing with the gravity of the action realistically.

As for supporting the unwanted babies of couples who can't seem to figure out how to practice birth control in this day and age, I'm willing to do so as we did back in the day before many such methods were even available. Orphanages are probably a lot more cost effective, practical and have a better chance of assuring that the same irresponsible behavior doesn't pass on to the next generation.

Heather, ideology and narrow-mindedness detracts from solving the real issue. Of the women I know who have had abortions, married and unmarried, each felt they had no choice, and that lack of choice was directly connected to desperation about money and lack of partner support. In the cases of the women I know who chose to have the baby, life has been very hard. Because the work schedule has to be flexible, those woman are among the first to be laid off, losing workplace-provided healthcare. The pay is usually lower too because not being able to put in as much overtime, etc., affects opportunities for promotion. There is also the continuing anxiety of having to deal with deadbeat dads (and relationship aftermath/drama). The guys are angry at the mother and the child--and we have all read the stories of how these men can behave toward the ones they should care most about. I've talked to deadbeat dads, and "she's a bitch" is insufficient excuse in my opinion.

Or there are men who simply leave, and in a case I recently shared, his boss helps him avoid wage garnishment and pays him part of his salary "under the table" so he can have a nice lifestyle. The mother of his child was able to live with her parents (she was 15). But I know other women who were thrown out of their homes and ended up living in poverty.

A child is a blessing. If we would ask more accountability from men who don't support their children, it would address the issue. A lot. Babies don't make themselves.

Why don't we match up these pregnant women with all those couples who spend thousands and thousands of dollars to get pregnant, including hiring a surrogate to carry the egg to term. We could have the couple pay the pregnant woman to carry the baby to term for them.

We should also ease up on the adoption laws so that couples who want to adopt aren't being forced to go overseas to find a baby.

As a safety net we should open up orphanages where these matches can be vetted.

We have quite a system going to adopt a pet, don't you think we could come up with something for humans. Maybe we could have a neuter and spay policy for humans.

@William: I am not bringing religion into the debate. I'm not even debating. What I am pointing out is that this issue is framed by one human being determining whether another lives or dies. Plain and simple. Abortion serves the greater good so we all end up accepting it even though most of feel it is morally wrong. I also am concerned that this is a slippery slope that will allow us to use these same values as it concerns the sick among our elderly. Can we use the same argument when we have the question of whether or not we should apply expensive medical care(paid for by the taxpayers) to a terminally ill patient? Wouldn't it serve the greater good to just pull the plug on the machine? Of course it does. Is it morally right? Do we as a society want that decision to be made? If the answer is no then why is abortion acceptable? Is it because the it is easier in our minds to make a fetus out to be a non-person? The fetus has a lot more upside to offer society than the terminally ill patient. So why do we kill the fetus yet go to the ends of the earth to extend the life of a terminally ill patient?

@William
You have made yourself irrelevant by your statements. If you were undecided until the 'SUPREME' court came with a its conclusion, does that mean that you will change your decision if a conservative court were to overturn the ruling??

Also, you said, "Nor do I, but I would not want someone determining that choice with out my input." Yet, you are willing to allow the life of someone else to be determined for them in abortion. How does that figure? If you wish to determine that a fetus does not serve the moral good of society and therefore should be aborted. Why can't I determine the same about your life if it no longer serves the moral good of society?

@J.B. Schmidt... I beg to differ with you about secularism. Religion deals with the supernatural, that beyond the natural. Secularism is related only to the natural world and not the supernatural. You are broadening the category of religion beyond its natural definition. Morality, whether secular or religious, are rules that a society adopts to provide a structure by which that society functions. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on the correct rules. Granted, there is tremendous overlap between religious morality and secular morality, but religion generally is making sanctified and holy for that which society is already doing anyway. I reference the hunter-gatherers who were absence of organized religion and may have depended on some form of shamanism, had a moral code derived strictly on the survival of the group and species. What we recognize as religion did not come into being until civilization became fixed and sedentary.

@Lyle
Religion is a set of beliefs. The determination of 'supernatural' is relative to your perspective. An atheist may not believe in a supernatural being; however, he exalts himself and the human race to that position. Hunter-gatherers would have exalted the leader or shaman to that level. They held something as the ultimate or 'almighty' (as William identifies). A person doesn't exist without placing someone, some entity or some object at the center of his/her existence. It seems illogical to assume that a religion can only exist when it is given an entity to be labeled as a higher power by an outside source.

Secularism fits that. Those that accept secularism are establishing something as the 'almighty'. Something that they exist for. That becomes the religion.

I believe the atheist dismisses the concept of omnipotent being in the belief that events are dictated by random chance.

@J.B. Schmidt...Your logic is specious. You have broadened the definition of religion to include any and all beliefs, no matter the content of such beliefs. By your reasoning then religion becomes meaningless. Anyone could claim their belief constitutes a religion and each individual could claim religious exemption for anything they want.

@William
"religion is a human invention to express their reverence for and faith in the Almighty". What is the 'Almighty'? Every religion puts that on something different. To some religions it is a state of being and not a person. Therefore if you believe God, the government, yourself, drugs, sex, money or fame are what you live for. Those are your 'Almighty'. The title of religion is simply a system of beliefs accepted by a group of people. Secularism fits that bill. Just because you think religion is bad word, doesn't allow you to ignore its meaning.

Stop all of you with the same old discussion we have been caught in for years. The opening blog is about " after birth abortion". Killing a living breathing child by whomever for whatever reason. Perhaps you default to the old discussion because it is almost impossible to wrap your mind around the idea let alone the practice. I have feared for sometime that it would come to this. If we can deem life at conception unworthy then we can deem life at any stage unworthy. Please close your eyes, open your heart and see the child before you defend another position.

Applause!!!!

@mau - there are many documented cases of women who had to make the wrenching decision to go through a partial birth abortion to save their lives because carrying the baby any further would have killed them. It constantly amazes me that so many anti-choice supporters think abortion is such an easy choice when for most of the women who do choose that route, they suffer and grieve.

So make abortion available only in the case where the mother's life is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of verifiable unwanted sexual intercourse. It would certainly be possible to do so.

If that's not a satisfactory option for the "pro-choice" crowd, then stop using those arguments and admit that you want to be able to kill your baby as a form of post-coital birth control. I support your choice if you're honest about what you're actually doing, and why.

@Bob McBride -- Roe v. Wade already allows states to outlaw elective abortions in the third trimester. And no one in their right mind wants to go through a second trimester abortion except for a damn good medical reason.

I'm not talking about outlawing it, Randy. As I said, if people wish to have that choice beyond the two instances I mentioned, then all I'm asking is that they don't hedge it as something other than what it is. A human being is being put to death because it has been determined to be an inconvenience. If the folks who do so are willing to be honest in that regard, I support their decision - not that that really matters.

There are also cases of mothers who gave up their lives so that their baby would live. And they have kept mothers on life support as incubators so that the baby survived. Why didn't they just let them both die? What proportion of abortions occur in the 1st 8 weeks vs full term babies. I disagree that most women grieve after an early term abortion. Society doesn't even consider that a baby. If they are going to suffer and grieve then don't do it.

This discussion is ridiculous for a variety of reasons:

1) What exactly do you propose as penalties for abortion? Jail the woman? Jail the person doing the abortion? For those of you old enough, even before was legalized, there were thousands of abortions, even with the penalties in those days. Imagine the spectacle of all of these people being marched off to jail. Jails that are already jammed to the rafters.

2) I have yet to hear practical solutions for those millions of children who would be brought into the world if somehow we could effectly ban abortion. I can hear the charges of this being brutal, but do you truly want to turn the streets of every American major city into Kolkata?

Of course ole JB is not only against abortion, but he is against abortions, but he is against the means of preventing them through contraception.

This is reflective of a small sect of people in this country, the American Taliban. But these are the people that the GOP somehow listen to, because these are the people who turn out to work their campaigns.

Now we are seeing lots of women, many of them Republicans by the way, aghast at what these fanatics are doing regarding contraception. The GOP has done the impossible and taken their female supporters minds off taxes and Obamacare.

The only danger here is lulling progressives into complacency.

Surely even you Keith must agree that a full term baby should not be killed after taking his or her first breath? Forget abortions in the first trimester, forget about religion...Is killing a baby a day old acceptable? A week? A month?
If you can answer yes to that, then you must believe we should not jail anyone for murder? Even atheists give value to a human life.

For a society that is so technologically savvy, smart, gifted and talented, how can there be so many pregnancies that abortion has become the birth control of choice. What happened to preventing the pregnancy in the first place. For those who morally oppose the pill there are other means of preventing pregnancy that are just as effective. Problem is everyone has just gotten too lazy to make an effort to use prevention or are of the mind that it isn't going to happen to them, There have always been oopses but we have gone way beyond that point. Back in the day that Keith is referring to the rule of thumb was no abortions past 14 weeks. Then it got extended to 20 weeks, then to 24 weeks, and now it's to full term babies.

Again with the faulty history. In many places before Roe vs Wade, no abortions period.

Craig, I for one prevented an abortion for a birth that would have impacted me. Not a pregnancy that I caused, but one that would have and was a problem for me. So I have one up on most anti-abortionists. So therefore I believe there should be no abortions, but since I can see circumstances, even with late term, I think it should not be outlawed.

As usual, you guys dodge the question, which is for you. You want to ban it. How then do you propose punishing for it.

This is all rather amusing in a way. The GOP has used this issue to play you for years to vote against yourself interest, especially those of you who consider Christianity little more than simple being against abortions. How easy!

Think of it. The GOP has had times where they controlled everything in government. And unlike the Democrats, the GOP is one, monolithic party. You were born this way. So where is your amendment over turning Roe v Wade.

it really bugs me to see such stooges having an effect on policy when you haven't thought things through, but back policy based on your emotions.

@Keith
One monolithic party? Evidently Dale Schultz didn't get that memo. However, your unions and democratic officials in Wisconsin have stood together very monolithic like.

Republicans are split on how to address abortion. A simple amendment wouldn't work because it must pass the Supreme Court who instituted this ruling to begin with. Also, a lot of republicans believe it is a states right issue and not a national government issue. Therefore, the states must put it on the ballot as was attempted in ND. While I don't agree with abortion, I accept it as the law of the land. I can however, ensure that people who wish to do it use their own money and not government money and I can prevent them from expanding it into the realm of post birth abortions.

@Keith: The point I am trying to make is even pro choice advocates skirt the issue of full term abortion, much like you did with my questions. When is it too late ?
The debate may go one forever regarding abortion, but we must be able to agree that a delivered baby is human and alive.
Contraception is a whole different story. I do not think there is any movement to ban its use. There is of course some debate on who should pay for it, and that too will continue.
But surely most people can agree that opening the skull of a living breathing child to remove the grey matter is uncivilized.

@ Keith, I know better. Mine is not faulty history.

@William
Which government or political party is trying to take contraceptives away? Who are these people getting pregnant where self control is not to blame and do you have proof to back up that statement?

I am not anti-sex. I am anti-sexual planning. Millions of families are able to exist with only 2 kids, 0 abortions and the parents still have sex. How do they do it? Based on your argument that situation must be impossible. If a woman at Georgetown University wants to have as much sex as she can pack into a day; more power to her. Just don't make me pay for it and find a way to make it happen without kill child in the process.

In 1986 and before, abortions were available at Catholic Hospitals, by Catholic doctors, and paid for by insurance. They were not called abortions, it was called a medical procedure.

I must be a very rare case because I was able to prevent getting pregnant until age 35. Using all or some of the methods you mention. And when I was ready had no problem getting pregnant. Afterward using some of the methods you mention, prevented ever getting pregnant again. There are also other means of sexual gratification that can add a little spark to a relationship.

Roe v Wade set the standard for regulation. My stand isn't for religious purposes. For me it is a moral issue and hearing my mother's life story as an unwed mother.

Young people have been thrown into this situation by a society without morals.

J.B., hormonal birth control is not the same as a condom. Rush Limbaugh certainly seems to be confused by this issue (judging from the recorded radio clips).

I'm not sure how you believe you will be paying for hormonal birth control for a woman who attends school in DC, anyway. I took an audit course at GT so didn't access the healthcare clinic, but students have a health care plan that will be charged to them with their tuition. The insurance company/school increases the cost of the policy to the students. How are you paying for this?

It is a shame that this young woman is being vilified by the extreme right wing misinformation gas machine because she didn't allow her voice, and those of the women she represents, to be silenced. She testified about a fellow student who lost an ovary because she couldn't afford the cost of the hormonal birth control on her own. Her point being that this prescription is written for other health care issues.

This whole issue of Limbaugh being the evil guy is laughable. Are we forgetting Bill Clinton and the Bimbo Eruption. Anybody remember the names that these women were called and how their reputations were destroyed by the the media and Clinton administration.

@Mau -- Do you really think it's acceptable for Limbaugh to call a woman a slut and a prostitute because she spoke out about the problems the lack of contraception coverage was causing women, both single and married? I took the time to watch her testimony yesterday. She spoke about a friend who was denied coverage for a hormonal prescription she needed to control her polycystic ovary disease. This woman was forced to prove to the insurance officials that she was not seeking coverage for contraceptive purposes (she was not having sex with men, so that seems to be pretty obvious) yet she was repeatedly denied and ended up losing an ovary. Why should an employer have the right to make moral judgments about an employee's need for a prescription drug? "Why yes, we cover this expensive antibiotic, but not if you're taking it to cure a STD. Prove it."

And who is the four times married Limbaugh that he should be criticizing anyone else's sexual morals?

Bill Clinton's sexual exploits, as distasteful as they were, have nothing to do with the issue.

@William
Where does life start for you? Sperm does not become a child. Ovaries do not become a child. At the point of conception, both become something different and it is the beginning of a child. That was not read in my bible. I learned it in a secular science class.

Life begins the moment cells multiply. That is the scientific definition. That is before the 'tissue' even becomes attached.

@Craig...Although that is the scientific definition of life, but to what potentiality do you assign to that life. Potentiality, as used philosophically, is beyond the knowledge of science or any other independent source. Since, we have know way of knowing, then it is a judgement call by the concerned parties. Is a fertilized ovum human, certainly; but does it have the right to be granted full human potentiality, no.

The proper secular approach is to deny full potentiality and rights until born. Until that point the potentiality is contained with the pregnant woman and not with the non-status life form. It is a symbiotic parasitic relationship with the power fully vested with the full potential of the host. In short, life does not = full potential.

Lyle: No offense intended, but wasn't it you who said everyone should have the same opportunities in life?
If the child is fathered by a mentally handicapped person, does that make a difference in the child's potential? What if the mother has a PhD and a big bank account?
Does any of that make a difference?

Nice of Lyle to play God and decide what lives should be allowed and which are just "a strain" and have "less intrinsic worth". All life is worthwhile Lyle. You disgust me!

@J.B. Schmidt...(continued) What makes us different from that bacterial colony is our cognitive ability. We can be aware of what is happening and hopefully adjust the condition voluntarily without letting nature take its natural course. The way to limit the condition is through behavior change and technology.

Behavior change through moral imperatives is limited in their effectiveness. As with all moral imperatives, choice is an important component, whether to follow or not the imperative. The sex drive is fundamental to the survival of all species and our species is no different. Some social structures are more successful with the imposition of moral imperatives restricting social sexual behavior. However, since moral imperatives are not universal and may come into conflict with countervailing moral imperatives, the implementation of moral restrictions becomes less than effective and very little limiting power.

The contraceptive technology that we have developed, aids us in conception and birth choice, is the best universal answer to the overall burden on society of an ever growing population. If one does a simple cost benefit analysis, contraceptives provide the most cost effective solution. For those that oppose contraception and pregnancy termination, they are equally opposed to the support of an ever increasing indigent population. You are now in a double bind of your own making. Therefore, you fall back on the ineffective moral imperative argument, ....(continued)

J.B. Schmidt...(continued) relying on religion as the foundation to give authority to the moral imperative. Our morality is terribly outdated and not reflective of the reality.

Many religious groups promote unlimited conception and birth as well as other special interest groups. They see population growth as strategy for increasing membership and support of their unique ideas and positions. With increased numbers comes increased power and representation in society. This provides security for the groups in question and perpetuates their survival against competing interests.

I am afraid where we will come to a period where voluntary birth control will become mandatory and pregnancy termination will be forced. Therefore, it is in society's best interest to support contraceptive use and pregnancy termination, even if it means rethinking and rewriting the imperatives of moral principles.

Lyle, these comments are downright disgusting. YOU are going to decide whether life should be sustained?

How about impoverished nations? Arent they just pulling resources towards lives that are not worthwhile? Maybe we ought to terminate most of their lives.

I cannot believe you are going to rewrite morality because for some crazy reason you some life is more valuable that others.

Is there anyway you can just ride off on your high horse and leave the important discussions and thoughts to those who have at least SOME sense?

@The Donny Show...All the argument boils down to is support contraceptives or face the consequences of out of control population growth. How much more simple can it be?

Lyle isn't playing God at all. Moral decisions about the beginning and ending of life in the cases where the 'life' cannot decide for itself belongs with the family, a doctor, and the family's clergy-person. The state should stay out of it as much as possible, because this is not a situation where one size fits all.

@Lyle
I support any contraceptive that inhibits the conception process. I do not support it being paid for by others. If I engage in other activities: riding a bike, driving a car, walking or running all of which have a risk if practices improperly. I am responsible for that risk. Sex is no different and shouldn't be treated as if it is an uncontrollable act.

Let me rehash this thread for my own enjoyment. A religious extremist (myself) wrote a blog objecting to the JME promoting an idea that post birth abortion is justified. I agree I used the 'slippery slope' model; however, every moral direction change starts that way. I was told that my objection to abortions was created only by my religious morals and that any non-religious evidence I provided was DOA because of the religious mysticism that infects my thoughts. Those of you who are pro-abortion, are enlightened beyond religious morals. Your morals come from elitists who wish to become the god of their own existence and those around them. That however, is not religion, that is......free choice? In the end, you only confirm that the article from the JME is less discussion and instead the means to a self sustained society. A society were the freedom to have sex with zero consequence for your actions is the second greatest joy one can experience. The greatest joy is the ability to kill anyone the elites deem as being without enough societal value.

Your right, I have bunched my panties for a 'non-issue'.

@J.B. Schmidt...You state you support any contraception that prohibits conception. Does that mean that you only support abstinence and barrier method? Does that mean you don't support the birth control pill and other chemical interventions?

@Lyle
My statement is very clear. I support birth control that stops pregnancy by inhibiting conception. That means family planning, barriers, spermicides, pills that prevent ovulation or doing jumping jacks after sex. I don't care as long as fertilization has not taken place. Since I cannot accept that the value of life is based on its burden to society or that it isn't life till it is self supporting (since no kids be self supporting without some assistance), then I place the beginning of life at fertilization/conception.

@J.B. Schmidt...Anti-fertilization is your only criteria? So sex for pleasure only is OK as long as it's between consenting adults and doesn't result in fertalization?

@Lyle
I feel as though your line of questioning is attempting to put me in a corner. However, I will play along and try not to jump ahead.

I am ok with sex for pleasure.

@Alfred...A couple of points; I am not in support of eugenics nor do I hate humanity. I do take a pragmatic view of the situation. As far as my life of being of any more value than anyone else's life, I didn't make that claim. As to your indictment of "typical of the poorly educated Malthusian eugenic types", but poorly educated, I beg to differ. In my formal studies I was deeply involved in population demographics. You fail to see and acknowledge the big picture, affecting us all.

@Craig....In general, in our society we don't support euthanasia. Even when late term abortions were provided it was only under the most extreme medical necessity to save the life of the mother. The whole idea of post birth abortion is one which I don't see Americans adopting. J.B. was introducing a highly complex article taken from JME. The Netherlands already allows euthanasia for the terminally ill and those suffering from extreme pain. The idea of post birth abortion is an ethical question that is creating debate. But the debate is occurring outside the religious sphere. It is yet to be determined the best course of action in such circumstances. Believe me when I say that there will be just as many counter arguments to the post abortion practice. Like I said to J.B. it is much to do about nothing at this point. I have been involved with many of the arguments myself. Generally they are nothing more than intellectual exercises between competing philosophies.

@Craig -- Is the topic partial birth (third trimester) abortion or abortion at any stage of pregnancy? The thing to discuss is when 'human' life -- the point where we become self aware and desirous of survival-- begins and when that life overrides the health and well-being of the mother of that life.

And then we have to discuss the issue of the morality of abortion and the legality. They are two different things.

Just to start somewhere we have to pick a point.
Post delivery abortion.
One minute old. Is this child self aware? I would say by virtue of survival instinct and the desire to feed, the child wants to live.
I am setting my personal feelings aside to try to get to the topic of live birth termination and opinions regarding that.
Anyone who is pro choice must have some limits? Is it an hour, a day, a year?

@Lyle -- My understanding is that under Roe v. Wade, the state has an interest in protecting human life during the third trimester of pregnancy, except where it conflicts with the life and health health of the mother. This effectively outlaws elective abortion in the third trimester, and if a state has not done this it is because the legislature has failed in its duty by not passing a law at all or by passing a law that is so stringent that it is unconstitutional.

Third trimester abortions are done only in the case of non-viable fetuses -- anencephalic infants or those with abnormalities that will be fatal regardless. All others are delivered early, although I can see an ethical problem with delivering a fetus that is not yet developed enough to survive on its own and risking severe complications from prematurity. What does a doctor do if the mother is about to die from complications but the fetus is not ready to be delivered? This is a medical decision.

After birth? It wouldn't be a matter of deliberately ending the life, but there are cases where one would not treat because of quality of life issues. Is it right to put an anencephalic infant who will never have any cognitive awareness or quality of life through a heart transplant? No more so than it would be right to put Grandma through a heart transplant or two rounds of grueling chemotherapy when she's far gone into Alzheimers.

@Craig -- Let's take it back to the start of pregnancy. A four cell zygote that fails to implant because of an IUD is not self aware. In fact, it's estimated that 50% of fertilized zygotes fail to implant in any case. For the first eight weeks of gestation, neural synapses are not firing. There is no self awareness there either.

Yes, in the case of healthy individuals carried to term, those zygotes and embryos will become self aware with an appreciation of their lives. We may be terminating future Ghandis, but we may also be terminating future Ted Bundys. And let me tell you that babies born to mothers who cared little for them before or after birth are likely to end up as Bundys rather than Ghandis.

Understood Randy regarding the Ghandis or Bundies. I have had a hard time with this topic, not because of my faith -or questions about faith...
I feel sick when I think about the full term abortion. I remember the look in my kid's eyes when she was born. She recognized my voice in a very busy room and looked toward me. Nurses even noticed and commented.
---life changing event---

@William Eib -- The Roe v. Wade decision stated that since neither religion nor science could tell us precisely when 'human' life began (religions differ and science was more primitive at the time) it would draw the line at state involvement at the point where a fetus could exist outside the mother's body -- the third trimester.

Science knows a little more now -- how soon neural activity begins in the embryonic and fetal brain. Religion hasn't changed at all. We're seeing an attempt by some to codify their own strict religious views into law. I think we can all agree that abortion is immoral to varying degrees, but we have to differ on when we call it murder.

Please point out where I represented anything pro or against abortion on this thread

They shouldn't be so terribly subjective. Morals are a matter of right and wrong; 'murder' is a legal term. My understanding is that according to Judaism, abortion is a wrong -- immoral, although it may be the lesser of two evils -- but it is not 'murder' -- the malicious taking of a human life.

I was using the words 'immoral' and 'murder' for the benefit of the other participants. My own views on the subject is that it's a damn shame when a pregnancy has to be terminated, but it's a private decision that should be made by the people involved.

@Randy1949...According to traditional Jewish law, abortion is not either immoral or an act of murder. Tradition tells us that the soul doesn't enter the being until birth. Now, certain sects of Judaism is opposed to abortion as interfering with the will of G-d or taking the role of Him. Opposition to contraception and abortion is a judgement of the Catholic Church adopted by many of the daughter denominations of Protestantism.

Saul of Tarsus was against sexuality of all kinds and clearly stated that if a man could not abstain, then and only then, he should marry. This is also the source of celibacy for the Roman Catholic Church.

@Lyle
Completely stepping a side form current conversation and without challenging your religion; but out of curiosity. Where do jews determine the Jewish stance on abortion?

I ask because if I were in a theological conversation, I would reference some passages from Psalms as a defense.

@J.B. Schmidt...All Jewish law is taken from the Torah (first five books) and the resulting commentary. Also, oral tradition will influence the law. The psalms are not a source of law and only represent hymns of praise.

Jewish law is formed when a preponderance of support is achieved for an opinion between Talmudic and Rabbinic scholars. Traditionally a life doesn't become viable until the head is born and the soul enters the being, thus becoming a human being. Of course being Jewish law, not all Jews agree with the interpretation. Many ultraconservatives take the view that it is viable from conception and man has no right to interfere with the Hand of G-d. Judaism is absent of dogma, traditional theology and doctrine. It is up to every Jew to decide for him or her self.

I don't know if that clarifies the issue or just more confusing. Write back if you need more clarification.

@Lyle
Thanks. Since Jews and Christians share a past, the current theological differences of a pre-Christ nature have always interested me. I understand what you are saying and I think (as with most biblical doctrine divergences) comes down to interpretation.

@J.B. Schmidt -- The Catholic Church used to allow abortion prior to 'quickening', which is roughly the end of the first trimester when a mother can first detect fetal motion.

@Randy
They also believed in Aristotle’s view that the embryo goes through stages from vegetable to animal to spiritual. I am protestant and a big fan of most Catholic decisions.

@William
When is a life a worth keeping alive? I have small children that are not capable of self preservation, are they worth while? I need to know when you would kill people. Is that strictly determined by the the person or the family? If so, then are there any boundaries?

@J.B. Schmidt -- I don't know. I always ask what I'd want for myself under those circumstances. Would i want my body to be kept alive if my consciousness was no longer functioning and would never return? Probably not. If I were old and living in total confusion, would I want painful things done to me to keep me going on that way? Probably not.

There are some genetic conditions where a child will die painfully within his or her first year of life. Is it a kind thing to allow them to be born and put them through it?

I heard of a case where a baby was born without most of its major organs, mostly the digestive ones. Transplants on that scale were impossible, although the doctors could have attempted to prolong the infant's life artificially. The parents opted instead to let their child die comfortably in their arms without a slightly longer life of pain.

These decisions are agonizing enough without the law second-guessing.

@Randy
That is hard. Every night I count my blessing when I look at my healthy children. I have a friend that has gone through the struggles of a disabled child. However, for the horror stories, there are also stories of children that were expected to die that have lived to have productive lives. Life is not fair, that does not give us the right to try to create fairness with short sighted decisions. What if Stephen Hawkins had decided (or someone else decided for him) that his disease would have made life to painful or not worth while? I respect Stephen for his science and am amazed at what he has accomplished in his condition. I wish I, perfectly healthy, could perform at that intellectual level.

@J.B. I'm not talking disabled. I'm talking profoundly disabled and painfully terminal. There are some genetic conditions like that.

Stephen Hawking is a miracle, and he has guts on top of that. He obviously has a quality of life that makes it worthwhile for him to go on, in his own eyes. But that's his choice.

I don't think Reform Jews are big on stoning anymore. I used that to illustrate the point that religions differ on the point where 'human' life begins, just as the Supreme Court said.

And while some people may privately consider some things to be immoral, religious dogma shouldn't set public policy, as these Personhood amendments and anti-contraceptive legislation attempt to do. I wasn't very big on school prayer and blue laws either.

I didn't know it was a sub-culture at the time but I do remember that being reinforced repeatedly in my late stages of post-teenage fetushood. Amazing what one can learn around here.

It's not hard at all. Why is it strange? Isn't a lot of the discussion on here about the disabled being a burden to society and to a mother.

Quite all right. Reproductive issue do have a moral side to them, because it's a human life being affected for good or ill. And this is purely personal, but if you aren't willing to do right by a life you create, then don't allow it to be created. I try to do the least harm possible, based on my own conscience.

@oak creek resident...You sure like to put words into people's mouths. I never stated that pregnancy termination was a good or bad thing. My point was that the limitation of contraception was a bad thing. Also, it's obvious that you don't understand the current status of welfare. General assistance is limited to a lifetime of 5 years total. Even under the old AFDC system a woman was required to go to work when the youngest child reached the age of five. Those that were the welfare queens lost their benefits beginning in 1996. If you're going to jump in get your information together first.

Sorry I don't have cable so I can't listen to Fox. My news source of choice is PBS. Where do you come up with your stuff?

Yes you're wrong. I didn't like Hillary's plan either. Under her proposal my sister-in-law would be dead. I prefer to stay on the insurance plan I have now.

No one has read that lifetime supply of toilet paper, especially the two idiot senators of our state.

I will be watching Interchange tonight at 6:30P followed by Washington Week. Sometimes I watch Need to Know if I have nothing else to do after WW is done. I like PBS Newshour but I seem to forget to watch until I catch them when I'm scanning channels. You may have liked Frontline's Suicide Tourist, I've watched it 3 times.

Sorry, can't watch Fox when you don't have cable. I read and watch both sides of the issues. So maybe I have picked up some of the talking points. Sounds like you have too. I'm personally a Ron Paul follower. We have too many laws.

Sorry I misread, you said PBS radio. I only listen to talk radio when I'm driving in the car. I can't take much of listening to the radio so I only pick up bits and pieces. Years ago I used to listen to the Press Club, can't remember the exact name. They used to have a lot of international speakers. I think they used to air on Friday. Trying to think what the frequency 89.7 or 91?. It's been a lot of years. Mostly I read.

Death Panels is your words, not mine. I don't use Google. Think what you like. I could throw labels at you too but I haven't. I have taken you at your word, not tried to label you and call you names. Nothing wrong with being right wing. Have I criticized you for your extreme left wing ideas?

@Born Free...Child sacrifice, talk about stretching reality. If anything, what is describe in JME could be more closely associated with the practice of child exposure. As far as child sacrifice is concerned it was only carried out by specific cultures, ending in the Near East sometime during the 5th or 6th century BCE. The sacrifice of children were not the culls of society, but the best and represented the highest gift that could be given to the gods, A little readying in anthropology would set you straight.

@William
A 'social contract' that was written, signed and presented to us by the progressive elite. The elite that have decided who is poor. The elite who decides which business is to big to fail. The elite who decide whether a babies life is actually life or a parasite that a woman is infected with. It is the elite that have decided when a topic is addressed because of religious mysticism.

This entire thread you have charged me with attempting to cram my beliefs done the throat of the American people. Yet, who appear to be able to sit on your perch and proclaim everything you or your SUPREME COURT utter as unparallelled truth. To sacrifice an others life for someones sins verses to sacrifice your own life for someones sins are completely opposing religious views. Just like sacrificing your own money to help the poor is the completely opposite of demanding others sacrifice money for the poor. If you want women to have contraceptives, then YOU pay for it. I will be donating a $135 car seat to the poor; however, I refuse to be forced to pay for the contraceptives of a woman at Georgetown.

"Not with my tax dollars", you claim we say. While you claim the holy response of, "With the tax dollars of others". I assume you have spending money every month that allows you to purchase things that go above and beyond your need. That money should be sacrificed to the poor, if not you are no more less a hypocrite then us in the Teahadist party.

@J.B. -- Tax dollars were to pay for contraceptives at Georgetown? I thought the original mandate was that all forms of preventive coverage were to be provided in the plans of the business or institution.

My understanding of the compromise is that the contraceptive coverage is to be footed by the insurance companies, which will no doubt end up in premium costs to the rest of us, but then so does other coverage like vaccinations for those large families of kids. That's preventive care too.

And since you're worried about your tax dollars paying for contraceptives, do you think this sort of coverage should be eliminated from public employee health plans?

A relative who is a current college student pays $500/year for a health insurance policy through the school. If I understand this legislation correctly, if hormonal contraception would be purchased, there would be no co-pay, it would be a covered expense just as a number of other preventive care services currently are. This relative does not attend a school in the state system, as far as I understand it, the taxpayer is paying nothing.

And has been stated many times here, this proposed legislation is nothing new, a number of states have similar legislation, passed with bi-partisan sponsorship and votes.

Straw man.

@J.B. Schmidt....Who are the "progressive elite" that you are referring to? This fictitious "they" that you are referring to are those that have been elected and appointed by we the citizens. When conservatives are in control, is it then the "conservative elite"? The original social contract was certainly not drafted by the conservative elites or we would still be part of the United Kingdom. Was leaving the monarchy an act or progressivism or not?

From the original social contract, called the US Constitution, our society has adapted and formed additional social contracts to meet the needs of a changing and growing society. The additional amendments to the constitution and the body of laws which have sprung forth provide the structure by which we can continue to function as a society. In a functioning society new understanding is assimilated and the society adapts to incorporate that new knowledge helping us to chart our way forward.

@Lyle
The social contract of the constitution was not intended to represent moral decisions.

Progressives drafted the constitution? That is loose meaning of progressive. Name a current progressive praising the original constitution. A document that restricted the rights of government over the rights of the governed. Compare that to the EU constitution. A document designed to restrict the actions of the governed in order to submit to the government. Our current federal government looks more like the England we left rather then the government our founding fathers left us.

Progressive elite: Mainstream Media, University Professors clamoring for social justice better, those with clout thumbing their nose at the beliefs of middle america.

@J.B. Schmidt....Since you are such a self-described "states rights" advocate, let's take a serious look at the EU and the governmental structure. The EU represents what we would have if we were to go to a states rights system. The EU is a collection of sovereign states who are formed into a loose confederation with no central authority. The states of Germany, France and the U.K. are in competition for dominance; not unlike the competition between Virginia, New York and Massachusetts at the end of the 18th century. The EU cannot achieve their full potential as long as they are unable to create a sovereign central power with the separate nation states ceding power to the greater central authority. Out of one side of your mouth you shout states rights, but out the other side you criticize the only states rights system, the EU.

@Lyle
The intent of the 2 constitutions are identical, I agree. They wish unite many under one. As i pointed out the constitution of the EU was designed to limit the rights of the governed while with US constitution was designed to limit the rights of the government. I offer the EU as an example of which would be considered progressive. I strongly argue your stance that the US is progressive when compared to the EU is wrong.

Your states rights argument is not accurate. In the US the constitution united colonies that never had autonomous rule. They were always under rule the England. At the time of the constitution, yes there were states that wished to become autonomous, they never did. The EU is attempting to united nations that have been autonomous for centuries. To combine governments that have developed over long stretches of time. You are not drawing the same comparison.

@J.B. Schmidt....Over the course of our nation's becoming, we have experimented with many concepts, ideas, structures and systems. We fought a bitter and bloody civil war which settled many questions left open by the founders. Out of our experience we have fought our way forward to reduce the divisions that separate us, forging a system that has been able to protect the rights of the minority from the excesses of the majority. We started off with the notion that all men (humans) were created equal in the eyes of the Creator and have progressed to bring that to fruition. Now, you and others that share your views want to turn the clock back to a time when life was less equal and opportunity was based on wealth, position, power, and the will of the local majority determines individual well being. What you hold as self evident truths are to be imposed on all others without the non-biased arbiter that our central government has become. With our current system of secular government, no one completely wins or completely loses, it becomes the equalizing force in our lives because we must compromise for the overall well being. Your original post on post birth abortion is highly unlikely to be adopted by our system of compromises due to stopping short by such people as yourself. That is precisely why I stated it was a whole lot about nothing. The thread has moved from the what if to the what based on moral interpretation. Have we moved the discussion forward?

@Lyle
You don't believe we all are created equal. Your desire to justify the position held by the JME authors proves that.

As for moving the discussion forward, you posted that samw statement some 200 comments ago and yet you are still commenting on this thread. I am not self absorbed enough to believe that my blog would change the Rubles of the world. I simply posted something that I care about. Take it as you wish.

J.B. -- Most people are stuck with the insurance plan their employer chooses to provide for them. Because of the way it works currently, private insurance policies are out of the reach of most families.

Perhaps it's time to change the system.

@Randy
Their are a multitude of situation people are stuck in, do we pay for them all? The guy whose car died and he can't get to his job? The family living in a small apartment because they can't afford a house? People without the internet to view my awesome content on Patch?

I can easily argue that government intervention in the health care industry has inflated the price of insurance. I can also say that we as consumers have not done our part to bring down those costs. To assume that then O-care is the next best thing, doesn't solve any of those problems.

And I could argue that the interference of a private, for profit, health insurance middle-man has inflated the cost of medical care past what most people can pay. The employer-based health insurance delivery system has inflated the cost of health insurance past what most people can afford to pay. Employers got to pool their costs and write them off as a business expense. Single individuals don't get to do this. As I said, maybe we need a different system.

Do you equate an emergency appendectomy with access to the internet? You can live without one, but you'll die without the other.

@Randy
That evil profit and on peoples health no less.

My concern is that ALEC may not fully understand the level of anger that may potentially be unleashed by their seditious policies. The outbreaks of irrationality, such as the murderous attack on Gabby Giffords, her staff, and constituents; or this new and hypocritical straw man attack on contraceptives (and on the GT student), suggest the genesis of social unrest in this country. ALEC's website shares that their purpose is political policy (but what I would say sedition or subversion), but is the political and social fallout of their actions discussed at all?

For those who question the involvement of religious ideology in business-friendly policy-making, consider the strategies that might be employed in garnering votes from varying constituencies, and promises made in exchange for support.

@Bren
Who is attacking contraceptives? Who wants to ban them? You need to understand the facts. Conservatives don't want the federal government mandating contraceptives must be given by a private industry for free. That is the issue. That GT student is a law student with a focus on woman reproductive rights. It has come out that she chose a school that who did not offer contraceptives for free, specifically. She is also 30 years old with a degree from Cornell in Policy and Management and Feminist & Sexuality Studies. With all your talk about ALEC and their control of the political process; where is your outrage at the feminists that are giving the Dems their policy mandates.

@J.B. -- Rick Santorum has said that he would sign a bill allowing individual states to outlaw contraceptives even to married people -- overturning Griswold v. Connecticut, in other words. So that's who's attacking contraception. I can't believe this is even an issue in the twenty-first century.

I wouldn't fret too much about what Rick Santorum says he would or wouldn't sign.

@Randy
You are not paraphrasing him correctly.

Santorum is for states rights. That Supreme Court over stepped the rights of the state. It has nothing to do with the religious zealot in us. We are just constitutional zealots.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/rick-santorum-birth-control-sodomy_n_1181291.html

@William
I enjoy liberals who rant like wild man in order to shout down the points of others. My rant was only post long, your was 3. You win.

I am a fascist. Was it my states rights theme, the personal responsibility theme or that small centralized government theme that tipped you off? If pushing my agenda (like every other individual that that posts anywhere on Patch) is fascist, then what are you?

Lyle, we were taught that "Jesus died to save our sins," that he could have chosen to save himself but chose instead to be sacrificed. I agree with you that this is not suicide. I would name it a steadfast commitment and willingness to die for one's belief, a martyrdom.

@Bren...My point is that Born Free's logic just doesn't hold and there are a number of conflicting belief systems. This is precisely why religion and political ideology should not mix. Societal moral imperatives must be secular in nature and issues involving moral judgement and ethics must remain in the secular realm.

Born Free, you cannot be a Rush Limbaugh fan and a Christian. You have to choose. And like Ron Johnson and Paul Ryan, you cannot be an Ayn Rand fan and a Christian. Again, you have to choose.

@Lyle
How in the world did you come up with Jesus committing suiside?
As the Son of God he could not kill himself because he was God and God can't kill himself. Jesus stating that he was God was bold and even EXTREME and that's what got him jeered, mocked and threatened and eventually condemend by the Pharisee elite. They saw him do miracles one right after the other and watched him forgive people of their sin and being in the selling sin forgiving business like they were they were about to be shut down or so they thought. They weren't going to have anything to do with His style of righteousness because it didn't pay very well, hardly paid anything at all in fact plus it left little wiggle room for extra marital affairs and or sexual indiscretions that would compromise a healthy long life. He exposed them for what they were - hypocrits - corrupt with a lust for power and the whole nine yards therefore in their minds he needed to go like yesterday. In their little minds Jesus and all his followers were a huge threat to their power machine (sort of like Elliot Ness was a thgreat to the Mafia) but they didn't see the forest for the trees. God didn't choose the Jews to be a mafia but rather a light on to the world and to do things right. People tho are people no matter what race they are, they're corruptable but God and Jesus knew this long, long, long before the fall.
Get a Bible and read it, front to back.

Lyle and Born Free -- I don't believe in souls. At least the kind of souls that only human beings have and are uniquely deserving of life no matter what. Animals have a consciousness. They love their lives, but we kill them out of mercy, for our food and for simple convenience. What makes US so special?

I go through life trying to be as kind as possible, and this is why, as Lyle said above, we should not let religious dogma mix with public policy.

@Born Free. You are simply stating your beliefs and many of us see it vastly different. From my tradition the man known to you as Jesus was executed for the act of sedition against Rome. The narrative you're stating is taken from your canonized Christian scriptures which belong to you and are not universally accepted. The man from Nazareth is not accepted by me or other Jews as the messiah or G-d incarnate. Your definitions of morality is not something that is completely shared and should not be the basis for the secular structure of our nation.

@Randy
How is your belief that people are without souls any more or less dogma then a christian belief that people have souls? How can one say that secularism is the baseline for judging morality when it includes some set of working beliefs to arrive at a secular stance? We all bring our dogmas to the table. How can you dismiss one over the other?

J.B. -- My beliefs are not 'dogma' because I didn't get them from being sat down in a Sunday school classroom and having them dictated to me. It's something I arrived at on my own after much thought and contemplation. But that's not the point. Our government gives us a right to privacy, which also means a freedom of conscience. If I'm faced with an ethical problem, I figure out the best way to deal with it -- without the government messing into it.

The idea of a human soul that is imbued in a zygote at the moment of fertilization and thus it has rights equal to that of its mother, even at the cost of her life and health, is an arbitrary religious dogma. Fine for you if you want to believe it and act accordingly. But that can't be imposed on everyone else by law.

@Born Free...I don't know where you get your information from. If you were a serious student of history you would never imply that Hitler was a communist. Although both communism and fascism have led to terrible dictatorships, the basic philosophies are completely different. In communism the state owns the means of production while in fascism supports private production but under government authority. The basis of fascism is extreme nationalism and the state becomes the ultimate expression nationalist social order. You are a very poor student of logic and your logical statements are fallacious.

There is a political and economic structure that most of the developed nations follow and that is social democracy. That is where certain human rights are guaranteed through public financing and regulated capitalism is the economic system that funds both private and public. Your statement that socialism will always be Marxism is just plain wrong. Marxism will never work because people want private ownership and the ability to express their sovereign individualism.

@Born Free...The only thing that the Nazis and Communists shared were totalitarian systems. You don't seem to grasp the basis of either system. Just because socialism is contained in a name doesn't necessarily describe the organization.

I have read and studied Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, including writing articles on "Das Kapital", "The Communist Manifesto" and Engels' "Theories of Surplus Value".

The Nazis were not socialists. The worked closely with German corporations. If they were socialists, why did the Nazis round up and arrest them?

Try not to get too tied into the moment. Remember that in the last election, prior to Obama getting the nod, the Democratic party, on the surface, was split pretty evenly between those who blamed one side for being racist, and the other for being sexist. You also had candidates playing to the sympathies of those who wanted to see pretty much the entire Bush administration brought up on war crimes charges (to name just one of the more radical desires of the outriders on that side of the political fence) in order to get those folks motivated and to the polls during the primary.

This is silly season, where the idea is to get those who are the most ideologically and politically motivated to the polls to vote in your favor. Similarly, those most engaged in this type of dialogue tend to be those who are fairly firmly set ideologically a considerable distance left or right of center. The majority in this country are pretty much dead center. Which is why you're now seeing "surprise" victories by Romney and why Romney has consistently over time been in the lead. In the recent past, people were agreeing with Cain, Gingrich and, to a lesser degree Bachman. This too shall pass.

So it'll be Romney versus Obama with Obama probably winning unless enough key parts of the economy are in the negative area (obviously a real possibility) at which point Romney might be able gain enough steam to win. Which is fine - the two are, frankly, interchangeable.

I can't handle any of these talk show hosts on a regular basis. Like I said before I usually will catch them while I am driving around doing errands. To me they are all shrieking blowhards, on both side. I happened to catch windbag talking about it on one of my trips.

Anyway, onto your comment about my views about these bimbos and whores. I thought those women with Clinton were bimbos. I have no respect for anyone who succumbs to any of these people in power. And then to use it for financial gain. I guess whore was a strong word but read the description of the word itself. I really don't know what my reaction would have been if I had heard my child admit publicly that they were engaged in out-of-wedlock sex. To me that is a private issue. I, like my mother, talked about sex with my child from a very early age. What sunk in, what didn't, what decisions my child made, I don't want to hear. I do have a sense and ideas of the route my child took, but I didn't need to hear it publicly. Even to this day I would never discuss my sex life with my parents, if they were alive.

I appreciate it when you refrain from snarky comments :)

@Mau -- Try WKLH, now that WFMR is gone. It's much more restful and edifying than shrieking blowhards.

I think the researcher who pioneers the first successful pre-natal fetal transplant will have solved the problem. A woman who doesn't want to go through the health risks and expense of pregnancy can donate the fetus to someone who is willing to take over the burden. We'll see how many nice suburban couples are willing to bear and raise a little black baby as their own. It would be even better if men could step up to the plate and do the childbearing a la 'Junior'.

Why aren't they encouraging the black couples or single black women, to adopt other black babies instead of having their own? Why are you always finger pointing at the suburban crowd. Why are there so many black babies without family structures?

Randy, go one step further, why aren't the males taking the responsility of NOT getting a woman pregnant instead of putting all the burden of birth control on the woman. It's time for men to quit thinking they are viral by impregnating multiple woman and walking. You see this attitude all the way from the poor up to the super rich.

@Mau -- Wait a minute INSTEAD of having their own? Generally the people who want to adopt are those who are unable to produce their children the old-fashioned way. Others are the extremely generous kind who feel moved to take in unwanted children. I have no problem with trans-racial adoptions myself, but the truth of it is that there are more African-American and mixed race babies in the foster-care system than white ones, which is why you find couples adopting from overseas.

Don't ask me why men don't take more responsibility for fertility control and for the children they sire. It's just that most of the commenters piously telling women to keep their legs closed are men, who never have to face nine months of pregnancy.

Up until now, the only form of male birth control has been intrusive and unreliable. Last week I read that a male birth control pill has been developed. Let's see if men are willing to take it, and if women are willing to trust the men to take care of things.

@Randy, I'm not letting you get away with this one "the only form of male birth control has been intrusive and unreliable". No form of birth control or ending a birth, is safe for women and never has been. There have always been side effects and some deadly. And many are intrusive and unreliable. Except a rubber which is safe, but if not used properly, is also unreliable. Tubal ligation is very intrusive and not 100% reliable either.

@mau...My spouse who works in child welfare, child protective services and adoptions, has to address the problems on a daily basis. The first role is to protect the children from abuse and neglect. If the child winds up in the foster care system, there still is every effort made to reunite the child/children back with their families. However, there is a great number of children who cannot be reunited and the parent's rights are terminated. Then and only then can these children be offered up for adoption. A large number of these children are special needs children and the majority of are children of color. The real problem is finding adoptive parents who are capable of raising a special needs child in a trans-racial family. There are not enough parents available to take on that kind of committment.

A cultural issue is that most single teen moms of color do not abort their fetuses or place them up for adoption. Culturally, babies are seen as a blessing to the family and the community. Therefore, most adoptions are of older children who found themselves in the foster care system.

@Lyle, my son is involved with his in-laws business that houses disabled adults who are being released from institutions like Southern Colony. Some are very severely mentally and physically disabled. Many they treat like family members. Besides being institutionalized all their lives, their families deserted them. It is a very sad situation but seems to be working. Have they considered doing this with children rather than putting them into foster care which can be just as abusive as them living with an abusive parent?

@Lyle -- Two of my step-grandchildren are products of the foster system, late adoptions after an early childhood of abuse and neglect. They have issue which no amount of love can cure. If you can raise a child from birth, it's one thing. Trying to fix problems when they're five or six is another thing entirely.

@Mau -- Condoms slip off and break. And then you're stuck with running off to the drugstore to buy a Plan B. Single, non-monogamous people should use condoms regardless, but they need a backup. Sorry to be blunt, but that's the way it is.

The best way to avoid pregnancy if for Madame Ovum not to be at home when Mr. Spermatozoon comes calling.

@mau...For many children group homes would be an ideal solution, Only problem is that the demand is so high that there isn't enough to go around. To create enough group homes the state would have to create as many as 400 group homes. To staff that would be required is a workforce of something like 2500 trained workers. The financial outlay would be horrendous and continuing costs would be unacceptable for the tax resisting public. I agree with you that foster care is inadequate and in too many cases is like moving these kids from the frying pan into the fire. Larger institutions such as orphanages are not much better in meeting children's social emotional needs, many only become depositories for the unwanted and run like industrial institutions. Group homes are the obvious answer, but very expensive.

@Randy1949...You bring up an important point about adopting older children of abusive and neglectful homes. Few adoptive parents are equipped to take on such a challenge, especially if it is a trans-racial adoption. There remains a shortage of essential services and resources. There is a new therapeutic approach available but child welfare is slow to adopt it. It is treating these children for PTSD. They are suffering from this disability and other efforts don't work until the trauma is effectively dealt with.

Sure, blame the condom for slipping off...

I'm not touching that with a ten-foot pole, McBride.

Ditto.

@Randy
That what all the guys on the Georgetown campus are saying. badum ching!

YES. St. Luke's Hospital (doctor) in Racine referred patients to St. Joseph's Hospital in Milwaukee for amniocentesis and abortions. If genetic counseling was requested one was sent to a genetic counseling service on the far NW side. All paid for by insurance. The procedure at 8 weeks (instead of the amniocentesis) was being done in Chicago but was considered too high risk for mother and fetus. Again, paid for by insurance and referred to by (doctor) at the 2 Catholic Hospitals.

Nothing was ever referred to as a possible abortion outcome.

Tubal ligation was available at St. Mary's Hospital in Racine.

Well, so much for the monolithic stance that the Church absolutely forbids this. As I've said before, Marquette University's self-funded health plan covered these services. I sense some hypocrisy here.

That's why I lost my faith in the Catholic Church and organized religion. Too many contradictions. Look at the good Catholic Kennedy family. And I'm not just finger point any particular religion or any particular political party.

That is why this whole media frenzy is political eye wash to me, from both parties.

Maybe this is a bit harsh and some will not like this, but maybe we should quit rewarding mother's bearing out of wedlock babies and especially multiple babies.