Atheists joining anti-abortion fight

[SoSad]

I did not know that people could be born without a sense of humor gene

Just as I suspected. You aren't familiar with British humor.

Allow me: [emphasis added]

The American sense of humour is generally more slapstick than that in Britain. I think this arises from a cultural difference between the two. Their jokes are more obvious and forward, a bit like Americans themselves. British jokes, on the other hand, tend to be more subtle but with a dark or sarcastic undertone. There is usually a hidden meaning.

[Cameron]

The majority of Americans are now Pro Life:

And if the majority of Americans vote to kill all the blue-eyed people. . .?

Or vote against freedom of speech?

[SoSad]

I believe I have posted my stance on abortion, what I would do might not necessarily be what someone else would do, and that is why I am pro choice.

I guess that did not fit your agenda for today?

I don't post off of a script, so no agenda, but hey, thanks for the compliment!

I am asking what you would personally view as being legal if there were no outside interference. I understand that a personal choice can be different than what is legally permitted. The two are not one in the same.

[songfourone]

Actually, there is a Lily Kravitz award given in nursing, but no nurse Kravitz:



If fictional nurse is a better fit to describe a nurse, I'm not in any position to argue the point.

Opponents of abortion rights last week gleefully touted the results of a Gallup Poll taken earlier this month showing that the percentage of respondents who identified as "pro-choice" had fallen to 41 percent, the lowest number since Gallup began asking the question in 1995.

The "pro-life" number -- 50 percent -- is the second highest in that history (see chart to the right)

But a closer look at the data suggests this was more of a statistical blip than an indication of a trend. For instance, the August, 1997, "pro choice" number was 47 percent, the same as it was in July of last year.




http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news...allup-but.html

[SoSad]

And if the majority of Americans vote to kill all the blue-eyed people. . .?

Or vote against freedom of speech?

With regard to abortion being viewed as murder you stated the following:

Obviously, most rational AMERICAN people would not describe it that way.

If the majority of Americans are Pro Life, they too may view abortion as murder, and if this is the case, are you saying that the majority of Americans would then be irrational?

I don't see people caught up in disagreements either legally or spirtually concerning the killing of blue eyed people or voting against freedom of speech.

[SoSad]

Opponents of abortion rights last week gleefully touted the results of a Gallup Poll taken earlier this month showing that the percentage of respondents who identified as "pro-choice" had fallen to 41 percent, the lowest number since Gallup began asking the question in 1995.

The "pro-life" number -- 50 percent -- is the second highest in that history (see chart to the right)

But a closer look at the data suggests this was more of a statistical blip than an indication of a trend. For instance, the August, 1997, "pro choice" number was 47 percent, the same as it was in July of last year.




http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news...allup-but.html

This is a blog and an op-ed piece.

[songfourone]

I don't post off of a script, so no agenda, but hey, thanks for the compliment!

I am asking what you would personally view as being legal if there were no outside interference. I understand that a personal choice can be different than what is legally permitted. The two are not one in the same.

And that is how I view it, I have never wanted to make those kind of decisions for someone else.

[Cameron]

With regard to abortion being viewed as murder you stated the following:



If the majority of Americans are Pro Life, they too may view abortion as murder, and if this is the case, are you saying that the majority of Americans would then be irrational?

I am simply saying that to view something as UNLAWFUL when it is OBVIOUSLY LAWFUL is not rational.

I don't see people caught up in disagreements either legally or spirtually concerning the killing of blue eyed people or voting against freedom of speech.

It is only the Constitution of the United States of America that protects us all from the rule of the mob.

[songfourone]

This is a blog and an op-ed piece.

The blogger sure made some valid points, but after you consider that the poll had a margin of error =/- 4 points which basically is about how is has been for over 15 years, consistently.

[SoSad]

And that is how I view it, I have never wanted to make those kind of decisions for someone else.

IMO, this is a topic that has strong arguments on both sides. There is the spiritual for some, and what should be legal.

As you mentioned, there may be complications that completely change a particular situation.

[songfourone]

IMO, this is a topic that has strong arguments on both sides. There is the spiritual for some, and what should be legal.

As you mentioned, there may be complications that completely change a particular situation.

So why do some feel it is up to them to make choices for others?

[SoSad]

I am simply saying that to view something as UNLAWFUL when it is OBVIOUSLY LAWFUL is not rational.

It's not completely lawful in the third trimester in every state unless there is a medical problem.

It is only the Constitution of the United States of America that protects us all from the rule of the mob.

How do you tie in mob rule with abortion?

[Grindelwald]

SS, after giving birth 4 times I can't imagine how any woman could kill her unborn child.

I agree with you Mom, I can't understand it either. But it's not my decision nor do I have the right to tell her what to do. Same goes for the government.

[songfourone]

Just as I suspected. You aren't familiar with British humor.

Allow me: [emphasis added]

I am very familiar with British humor, huge fan of Monty Python, spent my 25th wedding anniversary at Spamalot in NYC.

[SoSad]

The blogger sure made some valid points, but after you consider that the poll had a margin of error =/- 4 points which basically is about how is has been for over 15 years, consistently.

I read the article. I don't really have a problem with it, but people seem to get called out constantly if posting anything that is a blog or op-ed piece. I guess it's a lack of tolerance by other posters?

My point is that not all Americans are Pro Choice and not all Americans are Pro Life, so we really can't speak for all Americans.

[songfourone]

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive health data, non-Hispanic Catholic women of childbearing age are 29% more likely than their Protestant counterparts to have abortions (full study*). The rate is even higher--33%--if Hispanics are factored in. Another way of looking at it: while Protestant women make up about 54% of the population, they account for only 37% of the abortions. Catholic women make up 31% of the population and account for 31% of the abortions.

Given the Catholic Church's longstanding position against abortion, one would think the abortion rate would be far lower than the population as a whole -- and yet, if anything, it seems to be higher.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Cath...n-Paradox.aspx

[Cameron]

It's not completely lawful in the third trimester in every state unless there is a medical problem.

So what?

"Not completely lawful????" WTH is that supposed to mean?

Trust me here, MURDER IS COMPLETELY UNLAWFUL.

How do you tie in mob rule with abortion?

It is you who are looking to polls of the mob to support your position about a Constitutional right.

[songfourone]

I read the article. I don't really have a problem with it, but people seem to get called out constantly if posting anything that is a blog or op-ed piece. I guess it's a lack of tolerance by other posters?

My point is that not all Americans are Pro Choice and not all Americans are Pro Life, so we really can't speak for all Americans.

I do not care for blog or op-ed pieces unless they really do find the data that supports their article or blog, I think this one accomplished just that.

[SoSad]

So why do some feel it is up to them to make choices for others?

It's their choice. They want to spare what they believe to be human beings.

On the other side of the coin, it's their choice. They want to make decisions for themselves. I can't speak for their beliefs.

I think it becomes a legal issue because there has to be a defining point made as to what is and what is not "life".

[SoSad]

I do not care for blog or op-ed pieces unless they really do find the data that supports their article or blog, I think this one accomplished just that.

To me, they are either okay to post or they're not.