Through a Catholic's eyes, you're right. But, I'm not Catholic. And, you're omitting purely emotional reasons (gut feelings).

You're opening up a can of worms. I do not like to get into Bible debates. My reasons for many of my opinions are rooted in Christianity. But, not my stance on abortion.

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

Genesis 2:7

__________________
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~Ronald Reagan

Since I didn't make the claim that most pro-lifers contribute, i dont feel required to prove a claim I didn't make...(strawman).


Let's put the term many in context. On average, what number of people in a community are present protesting at an abortion clinic? Are there 6? 10? 200? What percentage of total people in taht community do they represent? And, since at least 41% of all women favor at least some limits on abortion, thus making them at least somewhat pro-life, it is quite clear that you are exaggerating a caricature of them since quite clearly, 50 million women ARE NOT protesting outside abortion clinics.
Thus, proportionally, such individuals represent an EXTREMELY SMALL segment of those who consider themselves at least somewhat pro-life.

http://people-press.org/commentary/d...?AnalysisID=88

Or they are not willing to go through the inconvenience of giving birth, quitting their job, etc. I think that you think that women have a single reason for aborting, when in fact it is more likely that they have a variety of reasons, and if financial means were the only issue, given that financial assistance is available in many communities, less abortions would be occurring.

But many are already doing just that.

And my point to you is that it's not just about the money as financial assistance is already available in many areas. I would suggest to you abortion is a more CONVENIENT SOLUTION for women than making the lifestyle changes required to follow through with the consequences of their actions...and I don't find convenience a justifiable excuse for causing death.

The statement I provided came from longitudinal studies of young people over the past two decade through the Seattle Social Development Project (along with linked projects in several other communities). These studies relied upon self-report data from young people who expressed, in a variety of ways, that the adults in their community did not respond to such behaviors with criticism, but rather by condoning them.

Should you like to read up on risk factors correlating to substance abuse and gang joining, I'd encourage you to investigate this research study. Hawkins and Catalano were the primary researchers.

http://depts.washington.edu/ssdp/


But "just say no" programs DO NOT CORRELATE to programs designed to change overall societal thinking on a topic. A more accurate comparison would be on the issue of smoking. As negative ramifications of smoking have been publicized, the rates of smoking amongst the American population have fallen dramatically in the last 30 years. The same could happen with promiscuous and irresponsible sex. Look at AIDS...again, a public education issue around "safe sex" led to decreased rates of infection and greater use of condoms in the U.S.

Nancy Reagan is irrelevant to this discussion. See above for two examples of how societal thinking, and then societal behavior, was changed through education and information.

OH really? What "program" led to decreased rates of smoking? The issue isn't "programs", it is information.

Since you aren't familiar with the details of what Bush has "proposed" and in fact dispute that he has proposed anything other than changing attitudes, It's rather hilarious that you then believe the Bush "program" can be compared to what Nancy Reagan did.

Oh, and apples/oranges too.

And my point holds true. Late term abortions refers to after 27-28 weeks (3rd trimester)...and these bans are not global across the U.S. Late term abortions remain legal in several states. I propose that all abortions after 24 weeks be banned because the fetus is viable at that point and thus can claim "personhood".

"It means a significant majority. You can correlate that many who oppose abortions are religious, but you do not know if their reasons for opposing abortion are religious in nature. Further, 20% of atheists also oppose abortions. I'd refer you to the Pew Research study referenced above (http://people-press.org/commentary/d...?AnalysisID=88). Interestingly enough, while people give their religion, significant numbers of those who don't even attend services regularly still support limits on abortions. This evidence seems to suggest that the reasons may not be strongly religious in nature.

I don't believe that their motivations for opposing abortion have been proven by you, and since that was your claim, you either need to substantiate it or acknowledge that you cannot do so.

I don't have to prove the opposite of your claims. You have touted your opinions as facts, and need to back them up with evidence for a change.

Catz[/quote]

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

The school of thought that says we as humans should kowtow to religious hierarchies who claim to speak for invisible deities that can be neither seen, nor felt, nor heard indisputably....or, that we need to bow before invisible gods that we can "hear" in our heads (a phenomenon that can be easily explained by non-spiritual means).

Catz

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

Catz writes: "...that can be neither seen, nor felt, nor heard indisputably...."

Then please provide us with your purely scientific explanation for love. Explain to us what it is that would cause a person to die for a loved one, based soley on things that can be seen, felt and heard indisputably. Also, please let me know where I can go and purchase my bottle of love, okay?

Moreover, your "seen, felt, and heard indisputably" argument, when taken to it's logical extreme, removes any moral responsibility from a person for the choices they make. It predisposes a person to be nothing more than a product of certain stimuli, encapable of responding to circumstances in any way other than they do. I person can not be held morally responsible for murder, because he was unable to choose not to murder. All of life is nothing more than mind-dumb robots encapable of making any moral choices.

Disagree if you wish, but the fact remians--all of human history bears wittness to humankind being spiritual.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

It sure does. No disputing that. But I don't see what that has to do with whether any or all of the thousands of gods (including yours) we've worshiped since the dawn of time actually exist. Spiritual people have worshiped everything from trees to cats to Zeus to God. But that does not mean any of them actually existed or do exist. The Romans "felt" Zeus. The Egyptians "felt" Ra. You "feel" God. So yes, spirituality exists. No doubt. And because of that we invented gods as an outlet.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

It's an action. I demonstrate love to my children daily when I care for them, cook them, provide them with clean clothing, and in general, meet their needs.

Next?

Catz

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

For the record, a strawman argument is when a someone sets up a "distorted" argument and attacks the distorted argument instead of the real argument. I didn't do that here.

If you are going to attack a person's ability to engage in reasoned debate (not to mention the "tools" of debate), perhaps you would like to make sure YOU know what you are talking about.

The only basis for my claim that some do contribute, but most don't is the fact that about 1/2 of the population is pro-life and the belief that if at least half of that amount contributed, the pro-life campaign would be a more visible presence in our daily lives.

We don't need to put the word "many" into context. "Many" simply means numerous. And you above quoted passage shows that you realize that "many" was an appropriate word. Why you are wasting time arguing about it is anyone's guess.

Lack of money is either the first or second most popular reason on any site I check (ex. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/r...abortions.html). I have no doubt that most women have more than one, but money is usually (if we believe what women say) the primary cause.

Nor do I, but if we believe what women say, economic concerns are the primany reason (or excuse, if you will).

Smoking and sex can't be compared. It is just as likely that the ever increasing "sin tax" on cigerettes has detered smoking and the reality of the severe medical conditions caused by smoking. If cigerettes still cost $2 a pack and the cigerette companies sold cigerette condoms that blocked 99.9% of harmful substances, the rate of smokers to the population would still be very high. I mean, a pack of cigerettes costs about 80 dollars these days and it increases almost daily. lol

The problem is that the cigerette-sex comparison is faulty for the reasons I outlined. The closest program that we have seen to the abstinence program is the "just say no" drug problem that did little if anything to stop drug use.

Cost and medical consequences caused the rate of smoking to decline. If you can outlaw condoms (which will make having sex more dangerous) and find a way to tax the hell out of sex, THEN you can compare the smoking rate to the sex rate.

Teen sex increased after abstinence program

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6894568/

I guess the abstinence programs changed attitudes there, huh?

You are right here and I fully agree with you. I was under the (mis)impression that abortions after the second trimester were illegal in all states.

What is so strange about that? I don't attend services and my opposition to abortion is based on my religious beliefs. People who believe in God don't necessarily need to attend services to be religious. People practice their faith in a myriad of ways.

I thought it was a pretty obvious point, but I will go and survey the country and I will get back to you.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

Scientific American has a fascinating article on "Behavioral Economics" in it's latest issue. It illustrates how altruism and other "moral" behaviors spring from social interaction in social species, such as primates.

Anyone who thinks that religion or "absolute laws" provide the only basis for moral behavior should read it. For example, chimps rarely steal, they frequently cooperate and care for each other, and they exhibit multiple levels of reciprocal relationships -- from close to distant, from direct to indirect, from general "friends help each other" to specific "be nice to me and I'll be nice to you" behavior.

It's easy to see how humans would develop societal rules that codify and reward such beneficial behaviors. And thus morals are born.

Human intelligence and capacity for abstract thought can layer further ethics and considerations on top of that. But the basic rules -- the "absolute laws" if you will -- are the same in most social species.

__________________
Man up.

I can hire a person to "do" things. Doing things is not love. Doing things is a response that comes from and born out of a heart full of love. This is how we show and demonstrate love. It is not, however, love.

Please try again to come up with a means of explaining love in a purely scientific, analytical, measurable phenomenon, wholly apart from any spiritual influence. I'm betting you can't.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill