Despite his emphasis on being a "compassionate conservative" and opposing "divisive" politics, Texas Gov. George W. Bush plainly voiced an anti-abortion stance last night at the Republican National Convention. Bush vowed to promote "a culture that values life-the life of the elderly and the sick, the life of the young and the life of the unborn." He promised to sign an abortion procedure ban, or the so-called "partial-birth" abortion law which was just declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Bush also called for faith-based social service programs, which were a focus of the Shadow Convention. His anti-abortion declaration received the largest applause from the right-wing, who comprise the majority of delegates to the convention. The Republican platform calls for defunding family planning programs in favor of funding abstinence-only programs, and also calls for a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions.

[Sources: Associated Press, Election News - August 3, 2000]

How many of us may have to look into our daughters eyes one day and say YOU HAVE NO CHOICE!

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 07, 2000

I see the problem. I never closed the bold [Is this what is called the tag?] after CHOICE at the end of the first post.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 07, 2000.

well, perhaps it's time for me to vote...FOR BUSH =)

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 07, 2000.

Debra-

Scary stuff!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 07, 2000.

I'm appalled at what the Republicans are supporting here. A sickly 11- year-old girl who is the victim of violent rape would have to bear the rapist's child, at least under the platform as written now. Who is the "murderer of souls" in this situation? Clearly, the Republicans. It is a case of "punishing the victim" all over again.

Bush's words to McCain stink. Even if he personally supports the right to abortion in the cases of rape and incest, it doesn't make his support of an anti-choice agenda right. He is pandering to a right-wing Christian minority that misrepresents and distorts the majority of the American people. Polls consistently show that a large majority of Americans support pro-choice laws. Many Americans are personally opposed to abortion in their own life but feel that others have the right to their own morality and views.

Bush's anti-abortion message may have received the largest applause from the right-wing, in an on-line tracking poll of his speech, his anti-abortion remarks received the lowest ratings from all listeners, including Republicans.

This isn't surprising. Most Americans prefer to live in freedom from far-right propagandists, preachers, and would-be converters. Most Americans prefer to make their sexual decisions in private. One's sexual life should be free from the reins of the government. The Republicans would like sex, pregancy, and childbirth to become a matter of the state, to have these very personal choices become federally controlled.

To permit abortion is not to say that one approves of it or to say it is morally right in every case. It is simply more prudent for society to permit it than to prohibit it. With prohibition, women and girls will once more resort to coat hangers, knives, purgatives, and other medieval solutions. Late abortions will become more frequent, as in Ireland, where Irish women have three times the number of late abortions as their British counterparts.

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and it won't work for sex. Abstinence is a mere concept, an abstraction. Most people prefer to have sex in real life. We need safe, affordable, and accessible birth control, and we need safe and affordable access to abortion when birth control fails.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), August 07, 2000.

"How many of us may have to look into our daughters eyes one day and say YOU HAVE NO CHOICE!"

How many of us have no daughters eyes to look into because there was a "choice". We made a "choice" and now lie awake every night knowing that we stopped an innocent life. Many of us wouldn't have broken the law to have an abortion but because it was legal we had one. I think of what could have been but now will never be because of that choice. At the time it seemed like the right choice. But now...looking back with 20-20 hindsight it was wrong. The mirror reflects that in my eyes every waking moment.

-- Once innocent (wrongchoice@rightchoose.com), August 07, 2000.

"Once innocent,"

If at least one out of every three fertilized ova is naturally aborted without the woman being aware of it, is one to conclude that a third or more of human beings are washed down the drain? Do you lay awake at night thinking of these naturally aborted ova, or what "might have been"? How do you propose to remedy this awful loss of human beings?

And what about the women who naturally abort? Are they "murderers"?

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), August 07, 2000.

Once innocent," If at least one out of every three fertilized ova is naturally aborted without the woman being aware of it, is one to conclude that a third or more of human beings are washed down the drain? Do you lay awake at night thinking of these naturally aborted ova, or what "might have been"? How do you propose to remedy this awful loss of human beings?

And what about the women who naturally abort? Are they "murderers"?

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), August 07, 2000.

Nature will take what it may, it makes no choices.

A choice is exactly that, a choice. It involves a thought, a conclusion and an action. The same goes for murder. I think I'm going to kill. I'm going to kill, I am killing.

There is no way to completely stop abortion from happening, natural or by choice. Even if abortion by choice is outlawed it will continue to be a choice for some. Just as there are those today who rob, rape and murder even though there is no legal choice to commit these acts. Society has laws in place to deal with those who choose robbery, rape and murder.

Choosing abortion is choosing to murder your own children. Our society does not believe that is true. But I do.

-- Once innocent (wrongchoice@rightchoice.com), August 07, 2000.

Once innocent,

You feel you made the wrong choice. That must hurt and I'm sorry your going through this pain.

But not everyone will make the wrong choice. Some will make the right choice for them.

You must remember that not only is a woman's right to abortion at stake here but so is her right to contraception. If she loses her right to plan her pregnancies and she loses her right to terminate a pregnancy then she has also lost her sexual freedom. If she loses HER sexual freedom then HE loses his. If HE REFUSES to lose his then we have a very large problem indeed ... or we will win this barbaric war.

The thought of these idiot 'big boys' laying down the law about what women may or may not do with their bodies and their lives sets something off inside of me as I'm sure it does many other women. Think about it. American women? Just how long do you think they will put up with it? The backlash will be felt worldwide. The big boys would have to lock MILLIONS of us up. OTOH ... they could burn us at the stake.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 07, 2000.

Debra, I feel that women's rights and abortion are two separate issues, and that you are confusing the two. Shouldn't men have a choice as to whether their babies are murdered? I believe they should. Why don't men get the choice to care for that child? Why is it that women have the "last word". Yes, it's her body. But when she is with child, there are two bodies. Hers and someone else's.

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 07, 2000.

p.s. please do not include me in that lump of American women. We are not all the same.

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 07, 2000.

cin,

I think women's rights INCLUDE the right to a safe, legal abortion and the right to use contraceptives. There is nothing right about bringing a child into this world to suffer.

I think women have the right because I think there is no one more qualified to make this decision than the woman herself. In the best of circumstances the father would be involved. The problem much of the time is that the father chooses NOT to be involved.

Hopefully one day we CAN live without abortion. A day when every pregnancy is planned and every child is wanted. But before that day comes women's issues need to be addressed. Please don't forget - women's issues are children's issues. We're on the same side - believe it or not.

OK. I won't include you in that 'lump.' You can watch the rest of us burn.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 07, 2000.

" If she loses HER sexual freedom then HE loses his. If HE REFUSES to lose his then we have a very large problem indeed ... or we will win this barbaric war."

This statement made me think of a paradox going on in this society. Pornography, brothels and prostitution is a huge money making business in this country. Is there a city or state anywhere where there is none of these business thriving and tolerated by local TPTB?

It seems to me extremely hypocrite to forbid contraception and/or abortion to women, and let these business run as usual. It seems to me that what the Republican platform is saying, without mentioning staunch prohibition of these busineses, that we want our wives and daughters under our control, and we'll get our sex somewhere else.

-- (pondering@home..), August 07, 2000.

Regarding the comments about "boys", I have seen polls that indicate that more women are against abortion than men. I myself could care less about laws, it is the heart and soul that matters when it comes to respect for life.

Once Innoncent, I admire your courage, and your convictions. I have heard similar stories from both men and women who have been in the situation - I never met anyone who didn't have pain from the loss of an abortion. Our sins, and innocence pays the price. A tough circumstance, and man is just as much to blame as woman. Fortunately, there is God's grace, love, and forgiveness for man and women.

-- FacdtFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), August 07, 2000.

cin, when men start having babies then they have a right to have a say in the process. You sanctimonious, bleeding hearts disgust me no end. Blathering about "murdered babies" who don't feel or remember a damned thing, but not giving a hoot about poor little kids walking around leading miserable lives. Do you know why this is? It's because you don't have to provide any physical or financial aid for a fetus. A fetus is just living off a woman and wouldn't have life without her. Therefore you can blather and shame, which requires little effort.

But if it's a real live child living down the street from you that's being neglected, battered, or abused, that requires action. If it's slum kids, playing in drug infested streets, that requires action. Running your mouth doesn't help these kids a damned bit. But with an unborn, you can lay guilt on the mother, and squawk about what your god wants, and bellyache and rant about "murdered babies" while you sit on your fat asses with your sanctimonious lips all pursed up like puritan judges, and do **Absolutely Nothing**.

And cin, Debra is not confusing women's rights and abortion. Abortion is a woman's rights issue. It is women that carry the babies, and are forever responsible for them, even when many times men take off on a new scent and leave her stuck with the kid and the whole set of responsibilities that goes with raising one. And it is a woman's right to do with her body what she damn well pleases and that means not having children by any methods of birth control she chooses, and having the right to abortion if she slips up and having the right to end her own life if she chooses.

And Debra I am one of those women whose blood boils at the idea of a bunch or sanctimonious old, anal-retentive, Bastards in Rome or anywhere else telling any woman on earth what to do with her own body. Can you imagine the bellowing roar you would hear if this situation were reversed and women were calling the shots for men about their bodies.

Fact Finder, yes, there are more women that are against abortion, but that is because more women fall for the bullshit of church dogma than do men. God's grace and forgiveness for what? For being alive? For being a human being? For being a mere woman? For being "born in sin," another guilt trip laid on women fostered by the almighty church and religion, a haven for weak minded sheep.

How on earth any supposedly intelligent beings can buy all that propaganda is beyond me. I was raised on the same HOGWASH, said ro myself, this is crazy, and moved on to Freedom From Religion.

Luckily, civilization has advanced enough, and TPTB have sense enough to decriminalize abortion, but they can't keep the corrupting influence of religion from making some it a sin.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), August 08, 2000.

"Running your mouth ... lay guilt ... squawk ... bellyache ... rant ..."

I think you forgot snot-slinging, Gilda.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 08, 2000.

I agree with Gilda. In a perfect world, the decision for an abortion would be made by both partners. However, there are all sorts of situations leading to abortion. For instance, how can we require the male partner's permission in the case of a one-night stand? Where the partner is abusive? Where paternity is difficult to establish? Or where the woman has been raped?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 08, 2000.

"Blathering about "murdered babies" who don't feel or remember a damned thing, but not giving a hoot about poor little kids walking around leading miserable lives. Do you know why this is? It's because you don't have to provide any physical or financial aid for a fetus. A fetus is just living off a woman and wouldn't have life without her. Therefore you can blather and shame, which requires little effort."

"Fact Finder, yes, there are more women that are against abortion, but that is because more women fall for the bullshit of church dogma than do men. God's grace and forgiveness for what? For being alive? For being a human being? For being a mere woman? For being "born in sin," another guilt trip laid on women fostered by the almighty church and religion, a haven for weak minded sheep."

Gilda,

You raise two excellent points. The lack of compassion shown for the born as compared to the unborn is very difficult to understand. When it is recognized that life does not END at birth the whole pro-life movement can be seen for what it is. It is a movement that puts very little effort into protecting the rights of children.

A major part of protecting children is going to require that the female half who are born not be psychologically abused by being taught that they have condemned the entire human race. I started a thread awhile back on The Female Experience. It was my effort to start a dialogue on this subject. At some point, women have to wake up to their situation so that they may teach their daughters a new way. The charges of 'Feminist!' like the charges of 'Baby Killer!' or 'Nazi!' shows what we are up against. We need a very thick skin. If we need to teach our daughters about Lilith then so be it. The evil smokescreen put up around her by the religious is no different than the guilt smokescreen put up around Eve. The difference in them is that Eve keeps seeking God's forgiveness while Lilith says ... well, you know what SHE says.

Another thread I started about the Evolutionary Female Experience was intended to look at the female experience not from the biblical perspective but from the scientific perspective. Had it continued a very good point would have been made for women's contribution to humanity. A gift our daughters well deserve, to know that they come from a long line of contributors. Neither thread was intended to be about women vs. men or women are better than men although they both had to side-step those accusations constantly to be able to proceed. Not so different from REAL life.

I'll save you a spot by the fire ...

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 08, 2000.

Gilda, you don't know me. How can you possibly say that I don't care about or wouldn't help children. Absolutely ludicrous. Talk about blind mud-slinging.

And I think you are letting your personal experiences cloud your judgement. Your bitterness that you feel for the guy that left you to care for a child by yourself. I could be the same way, Gilda. But I choose not to. When it comes to THIS issue anyway.

and by the way...you really think my ass is fat?! Maybe it just looks fat in these pants. I can only hope. {sigh} =)

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 08, 2000.

If we boil the arguement down to it's lowest components it can be stated as Life vs Control. Those who have the confidence that they are solidly in control of their lives, their bodies and their destiny, will choose life.

That's right gilda, it'd be better if those pofolks hadn't been born. After-all being poor is worse than being F**KIng DEAD! Being poor is the lowest condition a human being can achieve. Being fertilizer for worms is better. Especially if you have no memory, eh?

-- Balderdash (Rolling@slope.com), August 08, 2000.

Gilda,

Very, very well put. Thank you. Your language gives perfect voice to the anger most American women feel in being continuously subjected to the santimonious priggery of a tiny group of violent, misogynistic fanatics who would punish women for merely being human.

"I never met anyone who didn't have pain from the loss of an abortion."

Well, FactFinder, I have met many women who have had abortions and felt nothing but relief. The pain would have come from having to bear a child they were unemotionally and financially ill-equipped to raise, from knowing that child would not have a father or a stable loving home, from knowing that that child's welfare would lay not with its own natural mother, but with some "home", charity, or government agency.

You're full of god, aren't you FactFinder? But you're not very practical. Most of all, you obviously haven't met very many real women in real life who have had abortions and feel absolutely at peace with it.

You and cin and "Once innocent" can attempt to lay your own emotional poison and moral judgments on others, but it never works. Why not look at your own souls first? Why not judge yourselves instead of others?

Your morality is not my morality. Your body is not my body. What you think is right or wrong has no bearing on what I believe to be right or wrong. Why can't you see the inherent error in trying to preach to and judge others? Can you not accept that others have personal and private lives that bear no relation to yours, and that every single person on earth has the right to exercise their own religion, beliefs, and morality?

If most of the civilized western world permits safe, affordable abortion, then why do you and a tiny minority of fanatical Americans feel that your view is somehow superior to that of most of the civilized world?

I really hope one of you who judges will answer this last question without pointing to your religious beliefs as proof of why you are right. Please try to refrain from using inflammatory words such as "murder" in your response. Please, if you will, simply write a considered response to the question of why you are right and the rest of the civilized world is wrong.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), August 08, 2000.

Once innocent, You say you lie awake thinking of your unborn. Do you practice birth control? How many "unborn" do you think about then? Birth control does that - prevents (for the most part) birth of an unwanted child. How many little children did you prevent from being born when you used birth control? Abortion does that also - prevents birth of an unwanted child. And yes Cin some children are really unwanted; not loved, hugged, nor adored as you have done with your children.

Bush does waffle on this issue. I wish he would make up his mind but of course, that's politics. Abstinence is not the answer. How can you force a little girl to have her father's child?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 08, 2000.

Once innocent, You say you lie awake thinking of your unborn. Do you practice birth control? How many "unborn" do you think about then? Birth control does that - prevents (for the most part) birth of an unwanted child. How many little children did you prevent from being born when you used birth control? Abortion does that also - prevents birth of an unwanted child. And yes Cin some children are really unwanted; not loved, hugged, nor adored as you have done with your children.

Bush does waffle on this issue. I wish he would make up his mind but of course, that's politics.

Abstinence is not the answer. Cannot be legislated nor enforced.

Incest is probably the most notable backing for abortion. How can you force a little girl to have her father's child?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 08, 2000.

"How can you force a little girl to bear her father's child?"

Maria, to force a little girl to bear a child of violent rape or incest is an affront to human decency itself. This is the question that your anti-abortion fanatics will not dare to answer, because there is no answer for it. It's a crime beyond human tolerance and understanding, a crime so medieval in its cruelty, so inhuman, violent, and punishing, that our "religious" friends would prefer to avoid the question whatsoever.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), August 08, 2000.

One way the "pro-life" side's position shows its critical, philosophical weakness is when one poses the question of what should be done if either the woman or the foetus would survive through the process of giving birth -- but not both.

The pro-choicer's principle is that it should be the woman, as only human beings have a right to life (Constitutional AND natural).

The pro-lifer, on the other hand, may tell you they'd prefer the woman to live, but will NEVER be able (or willing) to tell you why, without contradicting their own stance.

By the way, the pro-choicers are the ones who are really pro-life, because only the woman is an independent living being in the truest, fullest sense, whose life could very well be destroyed if she's forced to give birth and care for the child.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), August 08, 2000.

What is the most indecent thing that can be done to an innocent baby?

Fact: Brutally torture and kill them.

Even attempting to justify partial birth abortions is monstrous. But our President allows it to continue. And he could have stopped it with the stroke of a pen! Acts like this can only be justified by those who have a hate-filled evil agendas against mankind. These peoples minds are so distorted that they can proudly proclaim that they are triumphing in the name of Freedom of choice. How Hitlerian! Femi-nazis, hetero and lesbian overlords sent from SATAN to not only promulgate evil and murder but to justify these atrocities using Godly terms like Freedom. Their mission: physical murder through abortion and condemnation of the soul of those who choose this path.

At present these evil overlords are succeeding. But the pendulum will swing around eventually because truth, justice and God are on our side. Pray for those who have died and are about to die in the name of choice.

How many overlords are on this board?

-- Evil Slayer (Pendulum@swingsoon.com), August 08, 2000.

Evil Slayer,

"Hitlerian"? Here's "Hitlerian" for ya...

Hitler voided the right to life through the extermination camps, obviously against the (human) will of the Jews and others.

The so-called "pro-lifers" wish to void the woman's right to her life through possible destruction of her life through forced birthing, against her (human) will.

Yes, there is a difference of degree, but ultimately the principle is the same: It's the contempt for, and possible destruction of, the right to (human) life, i.e., the contempt for, and the forcing of, acts against the will and bodies of the (human) victims, and against their natural and Constitutional rights.

Do you see the REAL parallel now?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), August 08, 2000.

Eve wrote,

"Hitler voided the right to life through the extermination camps, obviously against the (human) will of the Jews and others.

The so-called "pro-lifers" wish to void the woman's right to her life through possible destruction of her life through forced birthing, against her (human) will.

Yes, there is a difference of degree, but ultimately the principle is the same: It's the contempt for, and possible destruction of, the right to (human) life, i.e., the contempt for, and the forcing of, acts against the will and bodies of the (human) victims, and against their natural and Constitutional rights."

---Your attempt to compare pro-lifers with Hitler is a gargantuan undertaking that your "boss" would be proud of if it only suceeded. Perhaps it has planted a seed in the minds of a few reading it and so your task is successful, one by one. But the majority of rational people, even most pro-choicers I'd wager, couldn't and wouldn't attempt to make that connection. Partial birth means just that, BIRTH, at this point it is no longer abortion but infanticide. Please don't pervert the Constitution for your arguement. Most of us pro-lifers are also very patriotic. We understand that the innocent should have the right to a free life. And that life shouldn't be denied by those who have been irresponsible or selfish. There are plenty of caring people who would take those lives and nurture them. I we would say that even those who have been physically violated, that the life in them is still precious and there are plenty of people who would gladly care for their children should they choose to give them up for adoption. Yes, they may go through emotional hell for 9 months but they will be giving life for someone for 80 years. That's what it's all about eve, Life and Freedom, they go hand in hand.

-- Evil Slayer (On the right side@paradise.com), August 08, 2000.

"Evil,"

You wrote, "There are plenty of caring people who would take those lives and nurture them. I we would say that even those who have been physically violated, that the life in them is still precious and there are plenty of people who would gladly care for their children should they choose to give them up for adoption."

Are you caring for any adopted children at the moment? Have you ever adopted a child? Please let us know how we can verify the truth of how many children you have adopted.

Looking forward to hearing your own personal history of how many children you have freely adopted, cared for, and lovingly raised---

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), August 08, 2000.

**Your language gives perfect voice to the anger most American women feel in being continuously subjected to the santimonious priggery of a tiny group of violent, misogynistic fanatics who would punish women for merely being human.**

I am neither a fanatic, nor misogynistic, nor violent. You're deluded.

**Can you not accept that others have personal and private lives that bear no relation to yours, and that every single person on earth has the right to exercise their own religion, beliefs, and morality?**

So, you're saying that killing in the name of your religion is okay?

**If most of the civilized western world permits safe, affordable abortion, then why do you and a tiny minority of fanatical Americans feel that your view is somehow superior to that of most of the civilized world?**

Do CIVILIZED people really kill their offspring?

**How can you force a little girl to have her father's child?**

How can you force a little girl to have an abortion?

**Incest is probably the most notable backing for abortion. How can you force a little girl to have her father's child?**

Once again, blaming the victim. The victim being the baby as well as the child. Why not kill the father? (of course i don't condone that but YOUR logic does) **Maria, to force a little girl to bear a child of violent rape or incest is an affront to human decency itself. This is the question that your anti-abortion fanatics will not dare to answer, because there is no answer for it. It's a crime beyond human tolerance and understanding, a crime so medieval in its cruelty, so inhuman, violent, and punishing, that our "religious" friends would prefer to avoid the question whatsoever**

Why not ask the little girl if she would like her baby killed and torn to pieces? Afraid of what her answer will be?

**The pro-lifer, on the other hand, may tell you they'd prefer the woman to live, but will NEVER be able (or willing) to tell you why, without contradicting their own stance.**

Nature (I believe God) decides when someone or something lives or dies. People shouldn't make these decisions. If you disagree, then imagine a world where someone decides when YOU shall die.

**Are you caring for any adopted children at the moment? Have you ever adopted a child? Please let us know how we can verify the truth of how many children you have adopted.**

Last I heard, the list of childless parents wishing to adopt newborns was very long indeed.

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 08, 2000.

Actually, there's a lot of prospective parents for healthy white infants. For older children, the non white and "special needs" children, there is a lot of availability.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 08, 2000.

Another abortion thread where nobody convinces anyone of anything. "once innocent", I can only distantly relate to what you must feel. God bless.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 09, 2000.

I see that cin and her "religious" friends cannot answer the hard questions.

Yes, cin. "Civilized" nations permit safe, affordable abortions. America's contains a tiny right-wing -- and fanatic -- minority that wants to plunge America into a situation where women resort to using coat hangers and purgatives and die.

Yes, cin, you are misogynist if you support outlawing abortion and returning grown woman and actually born girls to go through this kind of medieval torture and death.

And if you want to call abortion "killing," that's your judgment, your problem, your position. It's your moral poison, not mine. Don't throw your moral poison and sickness at me and other law-abiding women who lead upright, moral lives and believe that all Americans deserve the right to make THEIR OWN own moral choices.

YOUR religion is not mine, cin. Don't force it on me or any other woman or girl.

And if you think forcing a little girl to bear a child is humane, I would question your sense of compassion. If you think that aborting a tiny piece of tissue at 3 or 4 or 5 weeks is worse than forcing that little girl to walk around pregnant and go through the agony of bearing a rapist's child, a scarring experience that will wound her child psyche for years, I'd say you are the murderer of souls, not that little girl.

A zygote is not a "child," cin. Removing a tiny tissue from a woman's body is not "tearing" a "child" to "pieces." Such inflammatory language does not answer the questions. You have failed miserably. You have resorted to your religion, your morality, your judgements, and distorted language.

I'm still waiting to hear why your position is superior or better than that held by most of the civilized world. But try to use your logic this time, cin. Try not to use inflammatory, distorted words like "murder" "killing" and "tearing children to pieces." Try not to mention religion.

We're all waiting, cin. Give it a logical shot. I want to know why your position is better than that espoused and protected by the rest of the civilized world.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), August 09, 2000.

Im failing?

You're flailing.

And I'm quite sure your head is going to spin around or explode any second. Do you have a splitting headache? =)

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 09, 2000.

Sort of funny, cin, but alas, you didn't answer the question. Let's try again. To get you started, I'm including some information for you. Here are countries that allow abortions without restriction to reason:

Albania
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Canada
Cape Verde
China
Croatia
Cuba
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
France
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Guyana
Hungary
Italy
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Moldova
Mongolia
Netherlands
N. Korea
Norway
Romania
Russian Fed.
Singapore
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
South Africa
Sweden
Tajikistan
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
United States
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yugoslavia(F.R.)

Here are countries that allow abortion on socioeconomic grounds or to save the woman's life, or on grounds of physical health or mental health:

Australia
Barbados
Belize
Cyprus
Fiji
Finland
Iceland
India
Japan
Luxembourg
Saint Vincent & Grenadines
Taiwan
United Kingdom
Zambia

And here are countries that allow abortion for mental health, to save a woman's life, or for physical health:

Algeria
Bahrain
Botswana
Gambia
Ghana
Israel
Jamaica
Liberia
Malaysia
Namibia
Nauru
New Zealand
Portugal
Saint Kitts & Navis
Samoa
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Spain
Switzerland
Trinidad & Tobago

So let us know, cin, why your position is superior to the laws of these nations that permit safe medical abortion. Could it be that all these nations are wrong, and you are right? If so, such astonishing news deserves an explanation. Remember, we want to know why your position logically makes more sense than the judicial and governing bodies of these countries. Please don't use religion, or terms like "murder" and "killing" -- just use your logical mind to make a rational argument.

Do it for "the children," cin. Make your case.

Looking forward very much to reading your response,

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), August 09, 2000.

Celia, If the answer is "none" does that nullify my arguement? No. Your arguement is poor. As long as you choose death you will never win. I hope you see the light someday. But I doubt you will.....

-- Evil Slayer (Brimestone@extinguished.com), August 09, 2000.

Well, Evil, all of these great nations obviously don't believe they are "choosing death." These meaningless, poisonous phrases you throw about are meant to inflame people's emotions because you cannot use reason. You cannot erect a decent logical argument, so you use words like "death" and "murder" to describe a common surgical procedure.

Tell us why your views are superior to that of all those countries listed above. Tell us how your views make more sense than those held by this formidable list of civilized nations.

But you won't present a good argument, because you cannot. You are part of a tiny minority that uses distortions (i.e., the "partial birth abortion" ruse) to deflect reason and common sense from the real issue: protecting a woman's right to choose in America.

The bottom line is George Bush would take away a woman's right to choose; Al Gore will protect it. That's what this thread is about. And Gore is standing alongside all the civilized nations of the world, and the vast majority of Americans stand with Gore on this issue.

But just for the sake of argument, please construct a logical argument, Evil. Take your time. Please refrain from using words like "murder" "death" and "killing", because such words automatically nullify your argument, as does mention of your religion, which may not be my religion, or the next person's religion.

We would like you to use pure reason to defend your argument because reason supports the truth. And I'm sure you will be eager to let us know why your position is true and these nations' positions are untrue.

So go on, Evil. Make a logical, rational case. Do it for "the children." We'll wait patiently, just as we are still waiting for cin to step to the plate.

Oh, and incidentally, Evil, you never answered the question as to how many children you've adopted. It seems that a lot of you pro-lifers are eager to "talk the walk," but in real life you don't "walk the walk."

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), August 09, 2000.

Celia:

Thank you for inserting the "partial birth" ruse comment. That term was coined by the anti-abortion folks. There's not a doctor in the world who would use that term. In reality, the procedure is RARELY used beyond a fetus that is already dead or brain-dead, but the anti- abortion folks ALWAYS use these to depict abortion in their pictorials.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 09, 2000.

Celia, getting tired? You are repeating yourself. I believe I answered your questions.

Have you run out of material?

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 09, 2000.

Celia, getting tired? You are repeating yourself. I believe I answered your questions.

I don't believe that telling her that you're quite sure her head is going to spin around or explode any second qualifies as an answer to her questions. Perhaps if you actually answered them instead of making irrelevant comments, she wouldn't feel the need to repeat herself.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 09, 2000.

Anita,

Yeah, they always pull that out of their emotional hat to try to divert the debate.

"Foes of abortion claim they're preventing 'infanticide,' keeping viable babies from being aborted as they're being born. It doesn't happen. It hasn't happened. No one can cite even one instance of this ever occurring in Missouri. By their phrases - 'infanticide' and 'partial-birth' -- abortion foes depict the issue as essentially late-term abortion. It isn't, as a careful reading of the bill demonstrates....The constitution still protects a woman's right to have an abortion. But if access to birth control and abortion becomes ever more restricted, it will be a meaningless right. That's what is really at stake." St. Louis Post-Dispatch, August 25, 1999

cin,

You did answer my question? Where's your essay? You know, the one where you use reason and logic to justify the truth of your position instead of relying on self-righteous religion and moralistic judgments. How is your position superior to that of the civilized nations listed above?

Gee, given that you're so upright and "religious," cin, I'm surprised you would resort to flat-out, un-Christian lying in front of us all!

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), August 09, 2000.

Lying?

Wow, you really are flailing.

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 09, 2000.

Wow, you really are flailing.

And you really are evading her questions.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 09, 2000.

cin,

Regarding my hypothetical on the "pro-lifer" being faced with a choice of saving either the woman or the foetus, you responded,

"Nature (I believe God) decides when someone or something lives or dies. People shouldn't make these decisions. If you disagree, then imagine a world where someone decides when YOU shall die."

But my question assumes that YOU have the choice here. And let's posit further that if you don't act, they'll both die. So, which way would you go, and why?

By the way, your last sentence doesn't make sense to me without a context. Would you provide one?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), August 09, 2000.

It means, Eve, that who's to stop this from progressing to extermination of poor or otherwise "unuseful" people on such an over- populated planet? (Doesn't this sound familiar? It's happened before)

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 10, 2000.

"Nature (I believe God) decides when someone or something lives or dies. People shouldn't make these decisions. If you disagree, then imagine a world where someone decides when YOU shall die."

cin,

I don't know if you have a daughter or not but let's suppose that you do. Let's suppose that she is pregnant and very much looking forward to giving birth but something goes wrong. Only one would survive the birth.

Your daughter wants to live. She has people she loves and people who love her. She doesn't want to leave them. She's only 20 years old and has not really begun to live her life yet.

How on earth could you, would you, tell her that no one is going to do anything? Would you sit with her and hold her hand while telling her God knows best?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 10, 2000.

Cecelia--Simon and Garfunkel

Chorus: Cecelia, you're breaking my heart You're shaking my confidence daily Oh Cecelia, I'm down on my knees I'm begging you please to come home

[CHORUS] Come on home

Making love in the afternoon With Cecelia up in my bedroom I got up to wash my face When I come back to bed someone's taken my place

[CHORUS] Come on home

Second chorus:

Jubilation, she loves me again

I fall on the floor and I laughing

Jubilation, she loves me again

I fall on the floor and I laughing

-- (nemesis@awol.com), August 10, 2000.

Okay, cin. You lied. You did not answer my questions. And we have by now determined that you cannot pose a rational argument in favor of your position.

So much for "the children."

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), August 10, 2000.