The bitter fruits of "choice"

It's difficult to not respond in kind when someone grandstands on a hot topic like abortion. Is there a rational topic you hope to facilitate with this, Rod, or do you just want to vent? If the latter, I'm quite prepared to respect it, but I do hope you expect the firestorm of invective (from both camps) instead of any attempt to look at the actual issues here:

1) Indian culture is killing those fetuses, not the abortionist. The abortionist is just the proxy.

2) India as the second country in the world to elect a female leader (Sri Lanka was first), Indira Ghandi. What sort of national hypocrisy does that indicate?

3) Those abortions would still happen: The UN agency said the practice was more rampant in affluent areas, because they provided better access to medical techniques to determine the gender of the foetus. How difficult is it to speculate that if those affluent couples are breaking a law to find out the gender of their fetuses, that they would refrain from breaking a law that made abortion illegal?

And yes, Rod: I don't want to hear a single pro-choice feminist or fellow traveler complain about the basis on which the Indians are exercising their right to choose abortion. I am choosing to ignore this attempt to throw the baby out with the bath water. And no, I am not smiling or intending humor with that deliberate use of that metaphor.>

My wife & I would take them. Every single one. How on earth could we support them? I don't know, but we'd find a way.>

I just can't get worked up over this issue.

Can you IMAGINE the crisis if all 7000 per day were actually BORN in India?

Who feeds and clothes these dots?>

There is a basis for opposing gender-based abortion without reliance on a strictly anti-abortion stance. With this many girls being aborted, there will not be (and in some parts of India and China currently are not) enough women to go around. This is a fabulous way to have a really unstable society.

I read somewhere that China has seen female infanticide for centuries, and refer to the extra men as "broken branches" of the family tree. They used to handle their broken branches problem by going to war. If thats not an option, I suspect they'll end up with serious social unrest and a large prison population. Certainly the societal temptations towards prostitution become stronger (or, perhaps, the pressures against it become weaker).

You'd think having fewer women around would work to the remaining women's advantage, but in many cases it does not. They simply become a commodity. Apparently there is a significant problem with wife stealing (meaning grab off the street and take to another town rather than adultery) in China. I heard there was an Indian movie about a fictional future town in which there was only one woman left. Its apparently quite brutal, since in order to keep social order she needs to be "shared.">

GIITV, many here (including Rod) wont agree with you that population increase presents any sort of problem, or maybe they'll say that population increase at its current level is not a problem. In any case, Indians used to deal with the bias for male children by having children until they get a boy. Professional, urban Indians are both aware of India's population problem and have no economic incentive to have kids. They've still got the societal pressure to have boys, however, so they'll abort girls until they get their boy rather than have girls until they get their boy. Then all those boys grow up and find there aren't enough ladies to go around. (And I contribute to their plight by taking one off the market :)).>

Abortionists are scum. If Hell is designed for anyone, it's them. Some measure of retribution needs to be exacted for the pain they ruthlessly inflict on the innocent.>

GIITV says, "Answer this - would it be a bigger tragedy if the 2.5 million girls per year die in the womb or as the result of famine, pestilence or war?

Everyone dies."

Maybe it's just the time of year, but I couldn't help think of another gentleman's opinion of what the poor should do:

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.">

When I read reactions to abortion topics like the set above, I am convinced that our society is hopelessly divided. I see no common ground whatever with people who ridicule concern about the destruction of the unborn. We do not inhabit the same moral universe.>

When I read reactions to abortion topics like the set above, I am convinced that our society is hopelessly divided. I see no common ground whatever with people who ridicule concern about the destruction of the unborn. We do not inhabit the same moral universe.


Not only do we not inhabit the same *moral* universe, we don't even inhabit the same *reality*.

It is simply irrational in the extreme to ignore the reality of the situation posited above - what exactly does one do with 7000 new people per day in India when they cannot feed, shelter, clothe and care for the 900+ million that already exist? What does one do with 1+ million new people a year in America when we cannot feed, shelter, clothe and care for the 300 million that already exist?

It's like earth is this never-neverland that's magically supposed to provide for all these humans, just because we "care about the unborn." Where do you think all these new people are supposed to sleep when there aren't houses for the almost 7 billion that already exist to sleep?

Are we to convert the entire biomass of the planet into humans before we realize the folly of living so grossly out of concert with reality?

We've already exceeded our capacity for supporting the populatiuon we have, and it's going to double within 30 years at the rate we keep breeding. I don't think the pro-life proponents have the cojones to admit the repurcussions that will have on civilization.

Different universes, indeed.>

The multitude of indifferent comments demand some kind of response. How can anyone talk about human rights abuses when the right to life is not respected? Is this not the biggest abuse of all? Speaking to those who are pro-choice, would you object if your own parents had decided to abort? Perhaps, you should imagine yourselves as those unborn Indian children. Who among you would not desire to live? Would you really rather die in the womb than live a hard life? It is a travesty, a mockery of all that is good and true and beautiful, that life is so little valued in this, the most "enlightened" of ages. Please. We're not as great as we think. Much worse, in fact. Much, much worse.>

I absolutely can't believe what
I'm reading.

I think GIITV's new name shall
be: Dr. Mengele

"Dr. Mengele .... Paging Dr Mengele..."

You are one COLD motherfucker.

Why don't you hand pick the 2.5 million you *THINK* will die as a result of war, faminine, etc...

Glad to know you can still see into the future.>

IF
life begins @ conception, or even within a few weeks after...
THEN
somewhere between 80-100% of abortions take a human life.
RB

The greatest numbers of abortions are natural and happen within six weeks of conception, aka "heavy flow".

You can't have it both ways folks. If you say each conception is a divine designed life and millions are washed away naturally either God practices a lot or He doesn't care much about numbers.

If you believe each conception is a life and holy because it's God's plan then isn't whatever happens to that conception or life just a fulfilling of that plan?

This is the difficulty with dealing with the prolifers. They're like a bunch of girls in the rest room with a mouse loose. Nothing but hysterical nonsense, cheez, calm down define a position without the hysterics, we can deal with that.

I'll be more than glad to take it on point by point. And I'm not an advocate for abortion. I view abortion as probably the hardest decision a good woman is going to have to make if she does. Someone less caring, well, it might be best for the child if there was to be one.>

I'm prochoice. I do, however, think that the people have the right to put limits on a woman's right to abort. We already put limits on late term abortion.

What bothers me the most about these statistics is that these are not early first term abortions. By the time a sonogram can determine the sex of a
baby, the embryonic phase has ended and the embryo has developed into a fetus. It's still in the first trimester, but it's late first trimester.

I think that a prochoice person can say that you don't have the right to choose(providing mother is healthy & baby is normal) once the "baby" hits the fetal stage milestone. The sex of a fetus is not a good enough reason to abort.

This problem won't change until Indian culture changes. Laws might help/might not help to limit it.>

I would like to try to respectfully describe the numbers game being played above as ridiculous in the extreme.

If all 7,000 of those daily abortions were carried to term, it would be nine months (or so) later and there are many other things that could happen in the meantime: a woman can have two or three abortions in a nine-month period. Those 7,000 could result in another 21,000 pregnancies that won't happen. So really, you are talking about maybe 700,000 live births as the other extreme, not 2.5 million, and given India's current population that number is much more in line with statistical reality.

So, you can all join in the grandstanding, or you can attempt to approach the issues rationally. One prerequisite of rational debate is accurately representing the data behind the statistics.

Rod: I am saying, Franklin, that when you make choice more sacred than life, you have no grounds to object when people choose to exterminate life according to sexist criteria.

I am saying, Rod, that a big part of the problem in the US is the failure to recognize that not all abortions happen as the result of the heartlessly arbitrary logic described in the India article. In your righteous ire (and I ask you to trust me: I understand and respect that ire), you make an egregious mistake that is immediately disproven by interviews and testimonies of women who are making a hard choice, not using abortion as a form of contraception.

I'd like to think that this is not your intent, but the analogy is the protesters who parade around 8-month aborted fetuses as if every single abortion looks exactly like that, when in reality a very small fraction of them come even close. Go ahead and make your moral case, but don't support it with morally dubious "facts". If your case has merit, you (general) don't have to use propaganda techniques to support it.>

Watsy we can mount an attack and violently change the Indian culture, think Iraq, gotta free the ladies.

However, isn't that kinda sorta like Europe attacking us to give the homosexuals the right to marry?

I don't like abortion. It's baby bankruptsy. But just like some here don't like to anyone playing God, isn't that what the pro-lifers are doing?

I have to wonder what Rod wants us to do, send all the I T guys back and bring back the call centers until they stop doing what their culture suggests?

Wait a minute! Isn't tradition Rod's big thing? Isn't that culture?>

Harvey Lacey---I cannot recall Mr. Dreher ever saying that something was good ipso facto from being traditional, nor that all traditions or cultures are created equal. At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, I'm gonna take a stand and say that female infanticide is bad. And I cannot honestly see how anybody can say that 7,000 (that's more than 2.5 million per year) girls aborted a day is good.

God bless.>

I don't know that Rod wants us to DO anything about it, Harvey. I think that he would like to see some outrage. I think that he would like for us to see that once we give a woman the right to choose that we have no choice but to accept ANY reason at ANY stage of pregnancy.

That's just not true. I give my kids the right to choose. My kids have the right to pick what clothes they are going to wear. I have veto power.

I believe that a woman has the right to choose medical care and treatment. It doesn't mean that she can abort at any stage for whatever reason. The Supreme Court didn't say that she could, either.

I feel badly that baby girls aren't valued more in India. I have 1 boy and 2 girls. I was a bit of a tomboy as a kid and was raised with brothers. I was afraid of having girls. I wouldn't trade them for anything in the world. My boy brings much joy to my life, but my girls are special to me in ways that I never expected. Indian parents are really missing out.>

Andy, I understand your position. But I see the option of choice for a woman as an unalienable right.>

If God did die on the cross who took care of the earth, all those sparrows and things, for the the three days?

God did.

From Frank Sheed's Theology for Beginners:

"The other truth we shall consider in this connection is that God died upon the cross. Here again I am reminded of another street-corner question of about the same vintage: 'You say that God died upon the cross; what happened to the universe while God was dead?' The suggestion is made that it was not God who died on Calvary, but the humanity of Christ. But in death, it is always someone who dies, a person; and upon Calvary's cross, only one person hung. God the Son in the manhood that was his.

"Thus it was God the Son who died - not, of course in his divine nature, which cannot know death and which holds the universe in existence, but in the human nature which was so utterly his. Death, remember, does not for any one of us mean annihilation. It means the separation of soul and body, a separation which at the Last Judgement will be ended. Upon Calvary, the body that was God the Son's was separated from the soul that was likewise his. And on the third day thereafter they were united again. In his human nature God the Son rose from the death which in his human nature had been his.">

dreher: "I don't want to hear a single pro-choice feminist or fellow traveler complain about the basis on which the Indians are exercising their right to choose abortion."

But if its purely sex-selective why would any feminist support this or should support it just because they are pro-choice?... rod is just slandering his political opposition in this country for what the Indians are doing with their culturally forced sex-selective abortions.>

So all this emotional and moral indignation, it's not really about the fetuses lost, is it? The fetuses who can't possibly know about the lives they're missing, and so can't possibly care.

It's about what you fear. The pain you feel. What you stand to lose. Isn't it?

Those things of yours have no bearing on the mother, any children she may or may not have, or even the culture they're from.>

It's only after we're born that we are faced with any potential at all.

I'm not sure what magic you think happens at birth that would make this statement true.

So all this emotional and moral indignation, it's not really about the fetuses lost, is it? The fetuses who can't possibly know about the lives they're missing, and so can't possibly care.

It's about what you fear. The pain you feel. What you stand to lose. Isn't it?

Please don't try to psychoanalyze the pro-life position simply because you don't understand it. A new life, a new human being, comes into existence at conception. Not at birth. At conception. Biological science more than supports this position.

Here's a quotation from someone who thought so:

We of today know that man is born of sexual union; that he starts life as an embryo within the body of the female; and that the embryo is formed from the fusion of two single cells, the ovum and the sperm. This all seems so simple and evident to us that it is difficult to picture a time when it was not part of the common knowledge.

-- Alan F. Guttmacher, 1933

Therefore, abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. Murder. That used to be considered a Bad Thing. But we seem to have evolved.>

The Liberal cannot see even one dot.>

Melissa,

This is week 15. End of FIRST trimester when most of these abortions are, most likely, taking place.

http://www.kidshealth.com/parent/pregnancy_calendar/week15.html

I think that it is about the fetuses lost.

Mr. Law,
I think that some of the moral outrage is being dumped on the husbands/fathers, too. At least, it should be.

I don't feel any moral outrage. Maybe I should. It's possible that something's wrong with me. Really, if I got myself into an outrage over everything that should cause some outrage, I'd spend my time in a rage. I went there the first 6 years of this President's term. I've gone back to worrying about the things that I can change and having the wisdom to know the difference.

This problem is for Indian men and women to resolve. Eventually, women will say "enough of this patriarchial garbage," and they'll fight for equal rights. It's interesting that the same people who are outraged by the loss of fetal life will be the same people who criticize the feminists for demanding their rightly place in that society.>

I must point out that the article said that it's the affluent Indian women having the abortions.>

Well, being a blind liberal, I request that all my typos be forgiven... meaning: gee, why should I be surprised that these issues cannot be discussed rationally?

Since I'm rationing my cynicism lately, I'll just make one comment:

Liberals and Progressives do nothing to change the conditions that breed selfishness and death to children and others worldwide. Condoms are hardly within the concept of morality.

Oh, yes, master. I am personally responsible for the genocide in Africa, the poverty and starvation in Africa and Asia, and I have never done anything to bring the Great White Way to all those poor, deserving victims of communism.

[Psst! Mr. Central American dictator, don't take offense. I don't mean you. Your support has always come from conservatives, so naturally this isn't about you.]

In the meantime, those poor affluent Indian ladies are avoiding condoms because they can't have sons if they don't get pregnant first. Why aren't you happy about that? Heck, by aborting those naughty girl fetuses that would only grow up to be pro-choice feministas, they can become pregnant multiple times in a year! Rejoice in the gift of God!!

Actually, I'll just surrender the field. While it feels good for a few minutes to make fun of leaps of logic from fallacious math, it does nothing to bring light and knowledge to the world. I think I'll go do my anuual reading of the story of Prometheus, to get me in the mood for my (shameless plug alert!!) solstice ritual performances.>

First I think we should look at what has caused many abortions.

1) US - we threw our daughters out of the house because of our embarassment.

2) If we didn't throw her out - we sent her away & then made her give up her baby.

3) If the girl/woman was raped we didn't believe her - we believed that SHE was the cause of it.

4) We wouldn't have to abort babies IF we didn't expect people to use birth control other than the "natural family planning" way.

I was married in the Catholic church and went through pre-cana. We were taught the natural family planning way. What I didn't get NOR do I still get is that you are still denying a pregnancy anyway you slice it. The only reason you could do the NFP thing is due to science and the knowledge we have.

WE DON'T EVEN VALUE THE LIVE HUMAN BEINGS THAT ARE HERE. Does not anyone understand this? Non-Christians look at how we treat people - it does not escape them. We look like the biggest hypocrits ever.

We have let thousands and thousands of AIDS victims die because it was a "sexual" disease.

But, not only that, we want to go to Africa and other under-developed countries and teach them to be monogomous & to cut out the pre-marital sex. All of this without teaching them about safe-sex or giving them condoms (yes, I am aware that condoms are not full proof).

I met a woman doctor from India who was a Christian. She begged me to pray for the Indian children. Do you know why? They were obsessed with our American culture. How did they know about that culture? TV!

I will get off my soapbox now.>

"...many here (including Rod) wont agree with you that population increase presents any sort of problem ..." excepting with respect to that segment of the population who happen to sport surnames that originated on the Iberian peninsula.>

GAH! This kills me. There are so many American families who would to adopt a child from India and the Indian government makes it really difficult for families without one person holding an Indian passport to adopt. (My husband and I know first hand, we've been doing research because we'd love to adopt from India.)>

Generally, I am against abortion. Abortion has become the dummies method of birth control. However...as an environmentalist, it is obvious that population takes a great toll on the earth. Certainly, India and China come to mind when you speak of overpopulation. Abortion is a sad and awful thing, but starvation and poverty and unwanted children are also issues that must be dealt with. Absolutism makes it difficult to discuss the issue in a rational way. Indian women should not use abortion as birth control, but the Indian population is out of control.>

I think we can all agree, god, that we've gotta kill some people so that we can have nice stuff. But I'm not sure why it should be baby girls. If we kill older folks, who already have stuff, we can take their stuff. Which seems a much more direct and efficient means of obtaining the extra stuff that we want. I think we should start with libertarians as their elmination would be good for the public order and most of them have cool video game consoles and lots of DVDs.>

Much better to just wait for a good reason to go to war and blow up some stuff, and then when the "babies" in and out of the womb are killed you can chalk it up to "collateral damage.">

Loudon -

Just look at the numbers, man. I know it's easier to ignore and hate, but seriously - look at the numbers.

"Scarcity" is going to be an issue for all of us, if this keeps up, but DVD players have nothing to do with it, and it's disingenuous of you to insinuate that.


Why am I bothering to even continue trying to make the point understandable when you clearly aren't interested in understanding?>

Can we call things what they are?
The word abortion (friendly word) actually indicates death and murder, so can we call it what it is please...its not a right to choose, its a right to kill...Those are the facts!>

Giittv,

The objective rule of statistics is that the numbers mean absolutely nothing without a scientifically controlled context in which to apply them.

I don't recall the time a woman is advised to wait after an abortion before having sex again, or what risk she is at with the next pregnancy, so I'm going to guess it's three months.

The Indian woman who conceives on 01/01 and has a CVS around 3/15, and aborts a female fetus on 3/16, can start the process again on 6/16. So, just by the numbers, and with the statistical chance that she will conceive a female more often than a male, a 12-month measurement might be for two or three abortions for one woman.

7,000 per day simply does not add up to 2.5 million in one year. There are other factors involved as well.

It's tedious, it's inconvenient, and you may find yourself mired in sources that are anything but easy to understand, but making additive claims in that fashion is patently, provably ridiculous. A person will be correct far more from luck than from any math.>

India is not the only place where baby girls are being targeted for abortions simply because of their sex. Of course, it is happening most in China where some regions have 150 boys born for every 100 firls.

Nick Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute has a presentation about what he calls the "Global War on Baby Girls" and he shows that this phenomenon has spread to eastern Europe, Latin American, and, among the Asian immigrant community in the United States.

It is also true, according to Nick's research that this happens largely among the more affluent, though sonograms can be had for a few dollars a shot anywhere.

Lastly, someone said up there somewhere in the comboxes that there are restrictions on late term abortions in the United States. Not true. There may be laws that restrict late term abortions in some of the states but they have never been challenged because everyone knows they would be overturned in our current legal abortion regime. And these "restrictions" are not acted upon. The fact is that anyone in the United States can get an abortion for any reason and no reason up to and beyond the point of birth.

It is astounding how bloodthirsty some are in this conversation.>

Taking a life is taking a life...no reason or rational can justify it!>

That's about the size of it -- a dot!>

Is it bloodthirsty or pragmatic to state that civilization will not survive with a population of 12 billion people?

It's neither bloodthirsty nor pragmatic, because it's not necessarily true. Maybe it is, but not self-evidently so.>

David;

Surely this logic does not escape you:

Given: In the last 300 years, the population has doubled thrice - each time, in progressively shorter periods.

Given: At current birth rates, and barring any global catastrophe, the next doubling of population should occur before 36 years from 1996. If the exponential decrease in time holds, we're looking at more like 15-20.

Given: We currently do not feed, clothe shelter or care for the 6-7 billion people alive on the planet. Whether we have the ability to do so or not is moot, as we're simply not doing it.

Given: As global population continues to rise, so do the fruits of population growth, including: war, famine, poverty, slavery (including wage-slavery, as we see int he third world) disease and environmental degradation.

Does it not stand to reason that continued unfettered population growth is a recipe for disaster?>

It's not the abortionists killing the babies? They're just the proxy?

Yeah, and the Romans aren't guilty for nailing Jesus to a cross.

There is no difference from the Indian government than the radical, feminist Bolsheviks who have polluted our values with their universal stench. Babykillers are all the same to me.

So, India elected a female before us. Boo-hoo. Waaaa. Get over it.>

Giittv,

I should have written this outright: I was not arguing or questioning your conclusions, I was attacking your logic.

Note, too, that my explanation leaves room for speculation.

In the end, my friend, I'm reacting to something you are doing that Rod did, and which tenmile above illustrates nicely: your rhetoric is emotional in support of a rational conclusion. All I'm asking (as a member of the Society Against Ritual Abuse of Statistics) is that you do the research and make statements that have a basis in fact or in disciplined, scientific research.

Allstat recently stopped selling homeowner's insurance in NJ because they cannot afford another payout like the Katrina aftermath. They are doing it not because they are sure it will happen in NJ, or because they have some prognostication tool that says it's likely. They are doing simply because they can't afford the claim payments if it should happen. Simple, disciplined business decision based on logic. No claims of speculative fact one way or another.>

tenmile,

As the son of a Jewish woman, I hereby accept full responsibility for nailing Jesus to the cross. Look me up the next time you're in Philadelphia, and I'll be the star of your death-by-stoning fantasy. I'll even display my horns and cloven hooves before your adoring crowd.>

Reply to Comments from god-is-in-the-tv (bet this is a woman)
I always think the people are funny who try and take a situation and apply it to others to use a rational for their argument! Actually not funny but stupid...we are not talking about WWII, we are talking about killing babies


Taking a life is taking a life...no reason or rational can justify it!

um.... I'll just pretend you didn't say that on a conservative combox board, becuase I'd betcha 90% of these people would disagree with that assertion.

For instance: Were the Allies justified in taking the lives of Axis members in WWII?
god-is-in-the-tv | 12.14.06 - 4:09 pm | #>

Franklin,

I have no idea how else to respond to you, other than to say: if the sun rose yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that, it is reasonable to assume that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Is it logical? Who the hell knows.

And to the brave Anonymous, please read the statement to which I responded, and you will see that one logically follows the other.

Oh - and my penis and testicles would beg to differ with you regarding my gender.

Not that I expect some anonymous troll to proceed with any sort of accountability, but what exactly about my statements make you wrongly assume I am female?>

"anonymous troll to proceed with any sort of accountability" OH I'M HURT!!
MY HEAR IS SPINNING - GREAT SHOT!
GIRLYMAN!!! probably a small one also!>

Revised...
"anonymous troll to proceed with any sort of accountability" OH I'M HURT!!
MY HEAD IS SPINNING - GREAT SHOT!
GIRLYMAN!!! probably a small one also!>

Link to Amazon.com's listing for Quinn's "Story of B">

god_is_in_the_tv
don't worry - its still called a penis even though its 1/3 of the size of the rest of us guys, Thats guys, not girlymen!>

I have my own trolls.


How utterly quaint.>

Giittv, we better not let them know the other secret, eh? ;-D

Karen, my post was the result of some free association mixed with a discussion I'm having on a Bnet board. I was also being mildly sarcastic, because most people either don't know or conveniently forget that Lucifer the Morningstar and Prometheus have alot in common. I would guess that more people know about Lucifer the Serpent than either the Morningstar or Prometheus. I also despair of nearly anyone reading Greek tradition and getting anything out of it besides adventure and a thrill over risque behavior. There is much to ponder in Greek tragedy. I produced Euripides' Electra, and it has a very strong moral theme.

Our solstice performance has the abduction story variation (a modern one, I believe) where Persipone is called Kore, and her mother Demeter and her grandmother Hecate are the earth and underworld figures. The combination of music and spoken word is as profound as it is intellectually engaging, and it is truly a multi-faith endeavor for all that it started with neo-pagan reconstruction of ancient belief.>

GIITTV -- I hadn't heard of Daniel Quinn, but I just looked up "The Story of B." on Amazon and it looks intriguing. Thanks for the tip!

HB>

Franklin,

I see. Thanks for the explanation.>

Angela
you have a small weenie! always works!>

Giittv: does it matter? ;)

Karen: you're very welcome.

I have a small wiener, and I am very proud of it. :P>

Meg:

I expect that's part of it. One of the hallmarks of our civilization has been the drive to "progress" beyond being subject to "nature." It is this that causes me to wonder whether the "right to life" really stems from hubris.

Have we fallen so far that we consider life itself to be under the control of mankind? We've subjugated the entire world in this quest for immortality, but to what end? We live longer, and we (in the West, at least) do so much more comfortably than our predecessors even 100 years ago. We've grown lazy and entitled in the process, in my opinion, but that's neither here nor there.

It troubles me that religionists cry foul so often at perceived slaps in God's face while trusting Him so little when it comes to getting their needs met.

How can we balk at someone demanding free clean water (as Rod's article above indicates) while applauding the right to be kept alive by machines?

I realize this probably makes little sense, but this whole subject has me in a muddle. Perhaps I'll be able to talk more coherently about it when I get home.>

And I'd also trade a culture with antibiotics for one without abortion.>

But god, isn't the ability to kill in the womb part of that "progress."

I suppose you're right (gods help me), but I do see it as more humane than leaving them to rot in dumpsters.>

before any well meaning pro-lifer jumps down my throat??????!!!!!!!
The Pro-death culture is discusting and down right EVIL - and you all have tiny wieners!>

conservative ----nope absolutely not, just Right! libruls are just those that come and go with the fads and trends, they stand for basically nothing, what ever is the flavor of the day, they are with-it, can change at any given second, wishywashy!>

Oh great a quote from a bozo - yeah that gives one credibility>

Oh please - Like being a Jesus-loving, ex-Christian, semi-pagan homosexual makes me popular?

Where do *you* live??

I wanna move there!!>

Erik,

I've seen many references to "Kore Persipone", and it makes sense that "Kore" is an epithet (this being a literary term applied to Greek writing, not something connoting negativity).

I must inform you that the performance tonight is based on the research and creative work of others. I'm just the producer. :)

I do want to wish everyone here a most enjoyable and joyous Holiday of Your Choice. May the Blessings of Light come to you and yours.>

The way you're following me around puttin my pigtails in the inkwell, one would think you've got a crush.

Is *that* what this is all about? You want my e-mail address so you can get past your bi-curious phase?>

Someone should explain the conduct rules to _tv. I suspect trolling for "partners" is against the code!>