Something has to be done about all these 527 ads. As an entire group, from the entire spectrum of political argument, have made a thorough mess of the system.

Apparently, the previous commenter would prefer a “system” in which he or she is not troubled by being exposed to free speech regarding the records and policy positions of the men and women who hold or seek public office. They have that kind of “system” in place in China, I believe.
I personally was in the room the day that Gianna Jessen, the survivor of a failed abortion who is featured in the new TV, testified powerfully at the first congressional hearing on the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, in the year 2000. Although NARAL opposed that bill, only 15 members of the House voted against it. When it came up again in 2002, not a single House member voted against it.
Yet in Illinois, in 2003, in the Illinois state Senate, Barack Obama personally chaired the committee meeting at which he killed a virtually identical bill. The position he took was so far out, that he and his campaign operatives have been misrepresenting the content of the legislation for the last five years. National Right to Life has collected the major points of Obama disinformation and provides the documented rebuttal to each, in a White Paper issued on August 28, which is here:
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
http://www.nrlc.org

I suppose that Douglas Johnson really thinks that John McCain will get a bill form a hostile Congress that he can sign that will overturn Roe vs. Wade when G.W.Bush couldn’t get if from a friendly Congress.
Yes, Obama is pro choice, I get that. But what about the things that he can bring change to? Are they better than the things that McCain can change, or are they not as good? PRO-LIFE is a dead issue, let’s get on track here. The battle over life choice should be fought in the Churches and the homes. Raise your children in the ways of the LORD and you can save a lot more lives than if you outlaw abortion. Make it easier to raise a child and many will make the choice to save a life. Teach in the schools that life is the greatest commodity we can offer and make life the best opinion.
I am pro life, but I think Obama’s plan is more realistic than McCain’s. That is why I think Obama is more a pro-life choice than the pipe dreaming of the Religious Right.
The pro choice people beleive that they are making a moral choice, I happen to disagree with them but I was there when they passed Roe vs.Wade and I know why they did so. It was to save the lives of thousands of young women who getting abortions (many who were forced by their parents) in unsafe “back rooms”.

You wrote: “PRO-LIFE is a dead issue, let’s get on track here. The battle over life choice should be fought in the Churches and the homes.”
Listen, there was a time when Slavery was also a dead issue in the minds of those happy to have slaves. They were also pro-choice and actually said: “If you do not want to have a slave, don’t have one”
It took men and women of good will to turn that awful page.
The battle for the right to Life of all individuals must be fought wherever injustice is found. Else we will end up like the people in Germany…looking the other way while our brothers and sisters were slaughtered.
I can tell you: there is not a single scientist in the World that would deny that the Human embryo (from implantation onwards) is an individual of the Human Species. Get on track with modern science and don’t let the Planned Parenthood religion guide your actions.

To Dr. Ed:
I think you are confusing the situation in the slavery issue. Your analogy seems to imply that the “pro-choice” side is equivalent to the slaveholders’ point of view, whereas the “good people” (apparently meaning only you and those who belong to your religious faction) came along and turned “that awful page.”
If I remember correctly, I believe the situation was the other way around. Wasn’t the church nearly silent on the slavery issue, going so far as to refuse to discuss it for fear of alienating church-goers? Even before that, the church (more particularly the Catholic church) even sponsored and supported slavery.
I think you’d be surprised to find that the church isn’t always the leader in social moral progression – oftentimes it’s the main resistance. I’m willing to bet we’ll see the same thing happen with the gay marriage issue.
And as far as your over-confidence in the fact that every single scientist in the world agrees with a view that just so happens to agree with your personal religious beliefs, you should read more. There are quite a few views in the scientific community, ranging from any point between conception and birth.
The only reason most can provide to assume life begins at conception is that is when the soul becomes present. But that view is undermined by the fact that that single cell can, up to twelve days later, split into identical twins. Now do these twins share the original soul, or does God send down a new one? And how do they decide who gets which soul? And then what happens with Chimerism, where the two groups of cells reunite? Does this person now have two souls? Does that mean they can die twice? Or does one get shipped back to heaven and redistributed?
Pretty much all I’m saying is you’re dumb.