Denise, very good point. There are many children in foster care today and there are many children being raised in sub standard conditions. What about these children?

Yes abortion is evil but that is a decision the pregnant mother will have to face.
For argument sakes, lets say the mother doesn't decide to have an abortion, then what happens to that child. Who is going to raise it and take care of it for the next 18 years. Will it be a member from the protest group or do they simply wash their hands of the "child" after the mother decides not to have an abortion?

I agree wholeheartedly with you Julie. Thanks for putting my own thoughts into words so well.

If these images were on a TV program, would you allow your child to watch the program?

Christine, this group does not feel it is necessary to let people know where they will be protesting ahead of time. Their entire intent is to 'ambush' people with this.

It is only because this article is printed here, that people even know about it beforehand. It is because of this writer that people will have the CHOICE to take another route to avoid it.

Giving people the information they need to make their own choices, is directly opposite from attempting to control their behavior.

Christine, as a parent whose youngest in now 17, I assure you I have long ago learned the futility of attempting to control another's behavior. The best we can do in life is to give people options, all the information available, and request they think o their choices before acting on them.

Often, the best way to do that is to ask questions. Mine still stands. How do you justify using limited resources on the unborn while there are so many already born suffering?

This group does post signs about 500 feet from their roost warning of the graphic images. However, there are not any easy ways to change your course. Drivers along these thoroughfares do not have the choice to turn around and head another way once they see the signs.

Then again, no one ever accused these folks of being pro-choice...

Lol I was going to to the same thing yesterday. But when I saw the signs noting graphic images ahead there was nobody to be found. I was kinda of disappointed...that nioce big middle finger was ready for em all.......even had a back up for them if they tried to shoot back with one. Hope to see them today.

While I agree that this practice probably isn't the best way to go about getting people to agree with their stance, I have to take issue with one point, Shawn. Society has effectively divorced intercourse from procreation. We now expect we will not have to deal with the consequences of those actions. There's actually a really good way to keep unwanted babies from being conceived, but people just don't want to practice abstinence. Not wanting to deal with natural consequences isn't just confined to that area of life, either. We see it everywhere and with everything. Until people stop being selfish by insisting on doing whatever they want, whenever they want, we will continue to have these conversations that actually go nowhere.

If murder is the taking of human life, than in order for it to be murder, the life in question has to be defined as human. Again, the definition of human life begininng at conception is one supported only by faith. I didn't say it isn't technicallay 'alive', merely that a zygote or embryo incapable of existing and functioning outside of the womb is not, scientifically, human life. You can reject that argument if you choose, but either admit your definition is based on faith or don't selectively twist my words to support your therefore specious argument. It is your right to think and believe as you do, I simply maintain it is not yours or anyone else's right to force everyone to agree with your definitions based on a single religion's narrow intepretation of the definition of human life.

A baby is not capable of surviving without it's mother feeding it and caring for it at the very least. What makes it human is not its ability to survive (ergo, you get in a lot of trouble if you don't feed your baby - not an option). Why is it an option to kill it when it is even more vulnerable? Because you can see it? Because it can coo at you? You are wrong, human life begins by every scientific definition at conception. It's your faith that keeps you from seeing that because to admit that means we are allowing millions of babies to be killed because someone else decided for them that they couldn't be born - for whatever reason. But you can't say it's not a human life, you can't say that just because it can't survive outside the womb it's okay to kill it. That's why these groups show these awful pictures, so you can see that it is a baby, it is a life and it deserves our protection. Not our half-assed explanations on why it's okay to kill it.

If you want to stop having abortions and let every fetus be carried to full term and be delivered, then you also have to come up with a system and means to care and nuture these "babies". I understand that you think the fetuses are babies and are "life". However you can't just wash your hands of them after they are born. That "life" then needs to be taken care of for the next 18 years. Who is going to do that?
The foster system now is overloaded with kids for one reason or another. Just think of what would happen if every potential abortion is carried to full term and delivered.

Logansdad - I can asume that you are a father so you will understand that a system has already been put in place for children - their parents. Again, there is no evidence that aborted babies would end up in foster care and from the many stories I've read written by women who made that choice I can't help but think they would have risen to the challenge of caring for the baby, and yes for 18 years. Perhaps we could take some of that money spent on abortions (billions) and educate young people on what it means to be a parent and have a family. What it means to have unprotected sex and that the end result could be a baby and educating them on the costs associated with the baby and how to take care of a baby. Then if they get pregnant they will know in advance what to expect (as if any of us could) and we can go back to making people own up to their responsiblities. Just because the baby "might" end up in foster care or worse is not a reason to kill it.

@Logansdad. Again, the parents need to take responsibility. To end a life is not taking responsibility.

"Again, the parents need to take responsibility. To end a life is not taking responsibility."

Taking responsibility is easier said than done. You continue to believe that is so easy to keep the baby after it is born. Sometimes taking responsibility means giving the baby up for adoption. When one has to make that decision, someone else still must care for it and sometimes it is the taxpayer. Sometimes taking responsibility does mean having the abortion. Again that is the decision the mother has to make. It is her decision and one that she will live with forever.

Logansdad - I don't think taking care of a baby is easy, when did I say that? Taking responsibility for your own actions isn't always easy - but it is necessary. Homework isn't easy, but we make our kids do it because they need to take responsibility for themsleves. Same with chores, or respecting authority - or do you let your children run amuck never facing the consequences of their own actions? Killing a child you don't think you can take care of is not taking responsibility. Raising the baby, even though its hard is, giving it up to a family who can take care of the baby - is, killing it - not so much. Pregnancies don't happen by accident, they don't happen from sitting on a toliet - they are 100% because a couple engaged in sexual intercourse. And they had the choice to use protection or not. If the condom breaks they have the choice to use the morning after pill to prevent pregnancy. The woman could be taking birth control pills. There are many ways to stop an unwanted pregancy without resorting to killing someone.

"Killing a child you don't think you can take care of is not taking responsibility."

A fetus is not a child. A developing mass that is a couple of weeks old is not a child. No one is killing a child.

"Pregnancies don't happen by accident...they are 100% because a couple engaged in sexual intercourse."

Some pregancies do happen by accident as birth control is not 100% effective. Some pregancies occur because of rape.

"There are many ways to stop an unwanted pregancy without resorting to killing someone."

Oh really?

"If the condom breaks they have the choice to use the morning after pill to prevent pregnancy."

I can't believe you said that. You are advocating for life, but you think the morning after pill is ok. Doesn't the morning after pill accomplish the same thing as having an abortion at 2-3 weeks?

I thought you also said you felt life began at conception, if you are taking the morning after pill, hasn't conception already occured?

I do believe a human life is a life from the moment of conception & implantation into the womb. From that point it is a life. And the morning after pill prevents the implantation, hence why it has to be taken "the morning after" not 2-3 weeks after. And yes, pregnancies can be 100% avoided. For example, don't have sex. If you do, be prepared to handle the consequences. Period. And killing for the sake of your convenience is not handling the consequences, its running away from them.

The morning after pill prevents implantation which happens at 3 weeks. So how is taking the morning after pill any different than having an abortion at 3 weeks?

You are at the exact same stage in the development process and both methods accomplish the exact same thing. How can you say one is bad and the other is not?

@Logansdad - will you please get educated! The morning after pill is effective 5 days after unprotected sex. NOT 3 WEEKS. And it IS NOT AN ABORTION. It stops the mothers ovaries from releasing an egg. To read more about it go here:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.asp

And this pill is available over the counter. So yes, there are ways to stop a pregancy before it turns into a life.

I am sorry but you fail to understand how the morning after pill works. Yes it is taken after sex to prevent pregnancy. It works by stoping implentation. You even said this.

Fertilizaion occurs by week 2. Implantation occurs by week 3. That information is taken from http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-by-week.

So if taking a pill stops implentation which occurs in week three, what is the difference if a women has an abortion during week 2-3.

I also find it ironic that you use a refernce from Planned Parenthood as support. Planned Parenthood - the same place place pregnant women go to when seeking information about abortion.

And the morning after pill is not always effective in stopping unwanted pregnancies either.

@ Logansdad. I also said I was incorrect about the way the morning after pill works. Please read the link I provided to see how it truly works - it stops the egg from being released.
My point is, there are many ways to stop a pregnancy before it happens. That is where the choice and responsibility lies. After that, it is terminating a life - no matter small or insignificant anyone thinks that life is.

"That is where the choice and responsibility lies."
Those should be left up to the woman. There are times where it is more responsible to prevent life.

Speaking of which. There is no difference is preventing life by taking a pill to prevent a pregancy right after sex and having a proceedure at 2-3 weeks along.

The morning after pill is not always effective and there are disagreements about how the pill works:
"Based on the belief that a fertilized egg is a person, some religious groups and conservative politicians say disrupting a fertilized egg’s ability to attach to the uterus is abortion, “the moral equivalent of homicide,” "

You believe it works at form of contraception in order to conform to your beliefs about abortion. That is fine.

If at 2-3 weeks, the morning after pill does the same thing that an abortion accomplishes, why is one right and the other wrong? Both women are taking responsibility to prevent a pregancy.

Dani, thank you for the work you do.

This isn't meant as a personal insult, but the mere fact that we can consider any child's life without hope, speaks volumes about how we value children in our society. To call them "throw away" turns them into victims before they even have a chance to prove themselves. Their parents chose life. Which of them would have been suited to have never been born? Not quite sure anyone would even dare to think about answering that question...

If you are so concerned with the funds going to children - why no outrage at the money spent on abortions? It's a billion dollar industry. How can you justify the amount spent on killing babies? Why can't some of that money go into helping the "unwanted"? And it's sad to call them "unwanted", no one is "unwanted". At least not by the creator. But that is where my faith comes in. I believe in the human dignity of all people. I, like you, am equally outraged at the 13 year old in a dog cage. But I don't use her tragedy as an excuse to kill untold millions of babies. What her parents did is no more wrong or tragic than killing a baby before its had a chance to live. And there is no clear evidence that a woman who aborts a baby would be that kind of parent (to neglect a child). On the contrary, most of the stories I've read about women are trying to be "responsible" or it wasn't the time for them. Many times I go on to read they have other children and seem to be good parents. So where is the evidence that those "throw away" children would have been better off killed in the womb? And are you prepared to tell them that? "Well, honey you see your mom made the wrong choice by having you so that is why you are abused and negleted". Wait, I get it, its her choice - so she can do whatever she wants after the baby is born too.

Christine I understand what you are saying but why should a fetus be brought into the world where it is not wanted. Is it better for that fetus bbe brought to term and then stuck in foster care for the next 18 years?
Furthermore if there would be more money spent on education and birth control then perhaps there wouldnt be people that have to consider and abortion.

Logansdad, I understand what you are saying. Did you ever notice today that when two people make a baby and they aren't pleased with the situation, they say it was a failure of birth control and not a problem with their morality? My point is that because society has divorced intercourse from procreation (the radical feminists would have you believe it's every person's right to have as much of it as possible with no consequences) people are surprised when they make another person. Mother Nature won't be denied. If you don't want to make another human being, don't put yourself in that situation.

Christine, yes some will say that. But if you think people are just going to stop having casusal sex and only use sex as a means to procreate, that will not happen. The Church and many conservatives keep preaching abstience as a solution. That hasnt worked in the past so there must be a new mentality. If you want to prevent abortions, there needs to be a way of preventing the baby from being created in the first place or means to support the baby until he/she is an adult.

Logansdad, I didn't tell anyone to stop having casual sex. I said people shouldn't be surprised when they have casual sex and their birth control fails and they get pregnant. But, I'm old school. This habit society has of avoiding natural consequences isn't good.

Great point. Did you know that cells left over from the babies can remain inside mothers for years? When the cells are extracted they are 100% different from the mother's - different DNA, different make-up. They are not the mother's but they come from the mother. In my mind the baby is a unique individual from day one. A baby can not survive without its mother's protection. If a baby is murdered by its mother after birth that is not okay. So why is it okay before the baby is born? The baby in the womb is in need of even greater protection. And women DO have a choice - the choice starts before sex (unless raped, but that is a whole nother topic) they have the choice to use protection or not, to have sex or not. Once they make that decsion they have to live with the outcome of that choice - which ultimately could be a baby. The baby should be protected, not the mother who after the baby is formed thinks its her choice to end its life.

Great points. I think someday we will looke at these years with abortions and realize what a tragic mistake we have made, allowing the killing of unborn baby simply because they can't survive on their own and the choice is in someone else's hands.

Neil, I haven't seen anyone mention legislation to make abortion illegal here. We are talking about the societal change necessary to effect change from within people. justme, I have agreed with just about everything you've said, except I have to take issue with the idea of it taking a village to raise a child. It doesn't take a village, it take the two people who were there when it was a party.

I guess by village I meant that parents tend to need the support of an extended family. I know I benefited from all of my family members being close by while raising my children who are now 18 & 16.

@Roy - I find abortion to be a crime against nature. There are many things we as a society "can" do, but doesn't mean we should. Also God gives us free will to choose, and again - there are many things we "can" do, doesn't mean we should. Lastly, as I stated before - the baby is a life - where is the baby's choice? I don't think it should be a "choice" to kill a baby. No matter if that baby 1 day old or 6 months, in the womb or not. I guess for me, it's a definition of when life begins. And for me, that starts the moment two cells meet. Just because you can quietly dispose of something - doesn't mean you should. We have the manmade (which is what I think you meant instead of mankind) to do all sorts of things. Doesn't mean its right, or that God condones it. For example, I have the mad made ability to kill myself, if I choose. But it's still illegal to do so. And God doesn't condone it.

justme, you are only looking at the issue from one side and that is the problem. You want everyone to be on your side and that simply is never going to happen. You think life begins at conception. I believe life begins at birth and that a fetus is not considered a "baby" prior to it taking its first breath and by the way, that is the way the law defines it.

As you said, we have free will. I choose to exercise my free will differently than you do. I do not believe in god, do not ascribe to any religion and feel it is a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. If that choice is to terminate a pregnancy, it is her choice and no one, not you or me, has any right to tell her differently. To do so takes away her free will and if your god gave that to her, you are playing god by taking it away.

Also, I don't know where it is written that it is against the law to kill yourself. Suicide is not against the law. I do know there is a law against assisted suicide but as far as I know, there is no law against it if you do it yourself.

And as for what your god condones, I want to know how you know that. Did you have a conversation with your god and discuss this topic? No, you read it in a book and as a result live your life believing what some human wrote a few thousand years ago before they knew anything about anything. (Sorry if that paragraph sounded rude, but I don't know any other way to say it.)

Actually I should have said human-kind to be respectful of women.

Roy, speaking as someone has has had three other people live inside her body (and I assume you cannot speak from the same experience) you must understand that a baby's body is completely separate from the mother's body. He or she is a totally complete and separate person only depending on the placenta, uterus and umbilical cord for life. So, what a women having an abortion is doing is not only to her own body, but to someone else's. No one here has mentioned making abortion illegal. And if we found one single solitary cell of life on another planet, scientists would be screaming we've found life on another planet, but millions of cells in a mother's womb that make a person are not considered life? I'm not interested in making abortion illegal. I'm interested in society elevating life and considering it sacred.

Christine, if we found a cell on another planet, yes would we be happy and call it life. What we would not do is call it a HUMAN life and that is the big distinction you avoided. It is the definition of what constitutes a human life that is at the center of the argument. You say it is human the nanosecond the sperm and egg meet. Science says it is not. I would rather go with the science.

The second part of your comment "make life sacred" is great, but as Logansdad said, what if the mother doesn't want the child and cannot care for it? You are condemning her and the child to a life of misery because you do not think she has the right to terminate her pregnancy regardless of how she get pregnant. You want to eliminate abortion but you do not want to deal with the child and the issues after it is born.

Should a rape victim be required to deliver and raise the product of the rape? Should a child molested by a relative? Should your daughter? Should you?

Roy, science also said the world was flat. How'd that work out? You also brought up a good point. What happens if two people just want to party but don't want responsibility. Should they be condemned to a life of misery raising a child they clearly didn't want? Our society sadly views children as burdens, as annoying, as things to get away from. That's wrong. Sorry, but there are consequences in life. (This perspective comes from a woman whose grandma had a baby 80 years ago while unmarried. It was hard. People just about crucified her. She could have gotten an illegal abortion. She didn't. She has since said people need to deal with the consequences of their actions. She's right.)

Christine, children are a burden. They cost money, they require care and feeding, they need things. That is the definition of a burden. If a person doesn't have the means to support a child, that child then becomes a burden on the rest of their family and society.

By the way, when people thought the world was flat they also believed in dragons and all sorts of fantasies. Things change and people get more educated as time goes on. Right now in this time, we know certain things that might appear to be crazy in 500 years (like the belief in an invisible guy floating in the clouds that created the universe - actually I expect that given today's trends of kids rejecting religion that one will take less than 200 years)

Roy, the definition of a burden is "A load, esp. a heavy one." There are people in the world who still generously and unselfishly give of themselves to others, including their children, and don't consider it a heavy load. It is done joyfully and with knowledge that that is what is right. You just don't appear to be one of those people.

roy - you are correct. Suicide is no longer illegal in IL (although at one time it was) so you are free to take your own life. HOWEVER, assisted suicide is still illegal. You can't help someone else take their own life. What about this - putting the "God" arguement aside - why is it a crime to kill a baby inside a mother if done by someone other than the mother? For example, if I am say 8 months along and some drunk driver plows into me and the end result is my baby dies - they can be liable for a crime. But if I, as the baby's mother, determine I can not care for the baby any longer then I can abort it and that is legal? Shouldn't be. I should not have the right to terminate a life. The baby is a 100% seperate being from its mother, it has its own DNA from day one, again 100% seperate from the mother. That is a scientific fact. The pictures those people stand out and hold are to educate people that this is not just some pile of cells, but very, very early on devlop the characteristics of a baby. Again, to me, its more than religion - its a crime against nature.

Logansdad, Mother Nature put this crazily effective system in place to raise people: parents. People who make people then don't want to care for them shouldn't have put themselves in the position to make people in the first place. It's called personal responsibility, and it's sorely lacking today. Families need to raise children. Period. Not the state, not the village. Families. That is where our money should go.

Christine that is a very immature view. To say a person shouldn't have put themselves in a position to make a person is to believe we live in some fantasy world. Sex happens. Pregnancy happens even if a person uses birth control.

Let me ask you this, if a woman is on the pill and the man uses a condom, they are practicing safe sex and not planning to get pregnant. In fact they are doing everything they can to avoid it short of abstinence (which is a joke all to itself). Now, suppose something goes wrong, the pill doesn't work (bad batch or something) and the condom breaks. Should that woman who had absolutely no intention of having a baby now be forced to carry it to term and raise it?

What if they cannot afford a child and had no plans to ever have one? Now they are forced (by you) to do so. Is that fair to them or the child? Wouldn't it be better to terminate the pregnancy than to have an unwanted child or a child that is not loved and abused by the unhappy parents?

Roy, are you actually trying to posit that personal responsibility is the immature view? In my opinion people in the real world should take responsibility for their actions. If I don't want a large credit card bill at the end of the month, I don't charge stuff on it. I may want things, I may even need things, but if I want to stick to my ultimate goal of financial responsibility, I exercise self control. Do you not see how society has twisted the idea of personal responsibility? Let's all have irresponsible sex and when I get pregnant claim it's a failure of birth control instead of a failure of morality. These conversations really point out how far we've come.

Christine, regardless of how it came to be, a child was created. You are stating the parents should take responsibility. If they can't afford the child then what should happen? They have two choices - abort the baby or give it up for adoption. You are advocating against abortion. So who should then take care of the child since the parents do not want it? Instead of focusing on what the ideal situation should be, you need to focus on what really happens.
Let's say it is two teenagers who have sex and create a child. Both get thrown out of their parents house. You are suggeting that the teenage parents take responsibility. So exactly how do you suggest they take responsibility and raise this child?

Logansdad, come on. Do you not realize millions and millions and millions of people receive help from the government in the form of food stamps, payment of rent and utilities, free phones, etc. It goes on and on. I don't advocate new parents live off the system, but stop stating it's impossible to raise a child if you're not financially ready. My Grandma did it 80 years ago with no government assistance of any kind. Guess who helped? Family. And my Grandmpa was kicked out of his parents' house. They lived with my Grandma's family. My point is that today we have the largest entitlement spending in history. The help is there for those who need it, any also for many who don't. I have two living children. They know that if they have premarital sex which results in a child we will strongly encourage them to marry. If a person isn't good enough to marry, why were you sleeping with them? Remember, I'm not a fan of that hippie free love, 60's thing many people have going on today. Again we're back to the same thing. Morality. Morality says instead of sleeping with anyone who strikes your fancy, you wait until you are ready for a family. Children DESERVE a stable, responsible loving family. Just because so many have selfishly failed to provide that doesn't mean they shouldn't. Once those cells multiply, it isn't about you.

I now understand your point of view Christine. People should only have sex for procreation and never for pleasure. Forget it, that boat has sunk.

"Let's all have irresponsible sex and when I get pregnant claim it's a failure of birth control instead of a failure of morality."

So what you are saying is that even married people should ONLY have sex if they want to get pregnant and if they do it for pleasure and something happens that they were doing everything to prevent they are immoral.

Roy,nope, I never said only have sex for procreation only. What I DID say was that you cannot have sex (protected or not) and be surprised when you get pregnant. It's like saying you can't believe that darn sun came up, again! Sunup surely follows sundown. Babies generally follow sex. Consequences. Have it tatooed on your arm or write it on your bathroom mirror in lipstick.

I agree! Parents are the ultimate responsibility. And making sure those parents have funds to take care of the children and are rewarded and not penalized for their efforts is where the money should go. If a person has a baby and shrinks away from that responsibilty they should be penalized (child support, etc.). And you never know what you can handle, till you have to handle it. I can't just terminate another's life because it might make mine messy. I have to deal with the consequences of my choices, just like anything else. It's not illegal to eat too many ho-hos and they are mighty tasty but if I keep eating ho-hos and nothing else I could end up obese and with health problems and I will have to deal with that by not eating ho-hos and getting some proper excercise - correct? If I buy a house and can no longer afford it, I have to deal with it, right? If I take a job and don't show up on time or sleep on the job, I could lose my job, right? Here's the thing, sex has consequences. Getting pregnant is just one of many. And pregancy is 100% avoidable. (Give me a break the pill is a bad batch AND the condom breaks? No way). So why, if you aren't practing good choices before and during sex (because yes, you can say "no" - no one ever died from not having sex) then why should you be allowed to kill your baby just because it is an inconvenience? You choice ends at the sex act.

Justme, If a parent doesn't have money to raise a child where do you think they will get money to pay child support. If they had the money in the first place ,do you think they would have given up the child?
Your house example is just another fantasy. Do you realize there are many people out there lost their job and can't afford their house. At first they try and try to do the right thing and find a way to make the mortgage payment,but realize they can't no matter how hard they try.
I think you are just living in this utopia where everything will work themselves out with a lot of effort. In some cases they do, in most they do not.
When all else fails what do you suggest people do?

How many people have you talked to and convinced them not to have an abortion? Did you then raise their child? If you think people should not have an abortion fine, then raise their child. If not, you have no right to tell other people what they should have done in the first place to prevent the child from being conceived in the first place.

And why do we always go to the argument that all these unwanted pregnancies will result in abused kids clogging up the foster care system? Tell me, has the number of children "in the system"? In IL its remained about the same since 1985 - but since the 60s in this country (when Roe v Wade gave women the right to abortions) - they have steadily increased (although have been on the decline in IL since the late 90s). So that kind of debunks the theory that all of these abortions would have ended up in foster care.

Julie, when did I ever say I was a god-hating person. I am a non believer. To hate something I would have to actually believe in it in the first place.

If it makes you feel better to believe in a higher power, go for it I am not standing in your way. I am just telling you I do not have the same belief system you do and do not need to in order to live my life.

I have the answers I need, not the ones found in a book written by a bunch of men a few thousand years ago when they thought the sun revolved around the earth. Tell me something, if the bible said that pigs can fly, would you be out looking for flying pigs today? Things change over time, you just have to be willing to accept that.

As for your last paragraph, are you telling us that no one other than the two individuals that created the child should be responsible for raising it? Are you saying that you believe that adoption agencies and foster homes should not exist because no one but the parents should raise a child?

Roy, your argument is illogical. Adoption provides a child with a family, which is what is being promoted here. Two people who are willing to raise a child as their own. The point is that a child is his or her parents' responsibility. If they choose to raise him or her, they will have help at least from the government. If they choose adoption, another family has agreed to raise him or her. With abortion, taking responsibility is avoided.

Denise, exactly when does the Talmud state ensoulment occurs? I am also interested to understand how comparing Christianity with Islam is an effective argument for abortion. To me it's like comparing the human rights policies of the United States and Somalia.

Denise, that was a very informative comment but I am afraid it will fall on deaf ears.

I was raised Jewish (I am now agnostic), I studied the Torah, I read both the old and the new testaments and also the Koran and find that with the exception of the Christian bible they all believe the mother's life is more important than the "unborn child".

The problem is that Christians feel it is their obligation to make sure everybody follows their religion and their rules and do not understand nor will they accept that there are other religions out there that simply do not ascribe to their one sided beliefs.

Denise, thanks for that synopsis of what other faiths believe regarding abortions. It still doesn't change my thoughts and you wrongly assume my views are based solely on faith. My views are based on seeing the very pictures that disgust you, seeing video of an ultrasound taken during an abortion. Of the fact the baby has its own DNA, that there is evidence the baby feels and thinks even inside the womb. But I am curious, according to the Talmud - when does "ensoulment" occur?

Denise, I have not based my stance on faith. I have based it on common sense and a decent idea of humankind. Those ideas may coincide with religious ones, but that is coincidence. Babies comes from sex. That is rather scientific as it is not only observable, but probable.

Science is ever evolving. The ability to DNA testing and see inside a mothers womb has only been perfected within the last 20 - 30 years. It is on those two that I base my thoughts on what human life is. History has been, in fact, wrong - no? Is it really outside of the realm of possibilities that you could be wrong? That views of the world written years ago, could be wrong? So to your point, the money spent on the protection of the not yet born is not wasted and is just as important as the money spent on protection of the born. And what of the billions spent on abortions every year? Couldn't that money be used to take care of the born? But you don't seem upset about that, why? Also, if the pictures bother you so much, I think you need to ask yourself why. Is it because you have to face the reality that is abortion, the reality it is the ending of a life and you can neither stomach it, nor know how to explain it to your children?

Apparently, Denise, you miss my question. "I am also interested to understand how comparing Christianity with Islam is an effective argument for abortion. To me it's like comparing the human rights policies of the United States and Somalia." You stated yourself the Talmud requires abortion under certain circumstances, which I find offensive. I also find the human right policies of Somalia offensive. I still would like to understand why, when I'm not making a faith-based argument, you insist on rebutting it with a faith-based argument. That was my question.

Denise, it is rather telling that you cannot understand my analogy, which was not offensive. If you insist on misinterpreting my arguments, we won't have much of a fruitful discussion.

So Denise you find the Talmud offensive because it puts the mothers life above the unborn potential life she is carrying?

I guess you would rather see a woman die and her unborn child live motherless and/or her existing children be motherless than to save her life by removing the thing that s killing her.

Roy, again you avoid understanding my question. What in the sam hill difference does it make what other religions in the world do about abortion? The analogy of Christianity/Islam vs. US/Somalia was presented to ask, "Who cares what other countries or religions are doing? How does that in any way affect what we do or believe to be right?" Do not continue to shift the subject. Address the question.

I will address the question like this - what in the sam hill (your words) gives you the right to impose your religious beliefs on every citizen of this country?

"How does that in any way affect what we do or believe to be right?" It is only right in your mind, not in the majority of the population of this country. You have not been given the right to dictate to anyone other than yourself what is right regarding a personal choice.

Roy, you are again addressing the wrong person. Read the thread. "I guess you would rather see a woman die and her unborn child live motherless and/or her existing children be motherless than to save her life by removing the thing that s killing her." Oh, yes, Roy, that's what I believe. You've found me out you genius. LOL.

Roy, my beliefs are not religious in nature regarding this issue. Read the thread. And people can do whatever they wish. They are responsible for it in every way, not me.

"And people can do whatever they wish. They are responsible for it in every way, not me."

Yes that is a woman's right and what the law says they can do. If those against abortion think it abortion is wrong, then feel free to ask the mother to carry the baby to term and raise that child as their own. If they do not want to do that, then they have no say on what should be done to the unborn child.

If you don't like abortion, then don't have one.

Logansdad, that also means I don't want to pay for others' abortions or their contraception. At its core, this turn of the conversation is about money. You want to do whatever you want and you want to make me pay (monetarily) for it. No thanks.

Christine, you don't want to pay for contraception to keep a woman from getting pregnant, but you'd rather have the state and the taxpayers pay for a child living in state custody for 18 years because you don't want the mother to have an abortion. Yep that makes a lot of sense monetarily.

Roy, you are misdirecting your comments to me, when I think you mean to direct them to Christine. And for the record, yes, I have read the Koran, at least the English translation as well as much of the Talmud and several of the Veydas.

Roy, just to clarify...I find the above analogy of Christianity and Islam offensive because I do understand both, as they are written and as they are practiced and often twisted. We are actually in agreement.

Justme-all correct, but incomplete. Abortion is an evil to be allowed as the lesser of two evils when the mother's life is at stake.

Denise. I appreciate your comments as well. And for the record - I never said all abortions are wrong, just that all of them are terminating a life. Which, it seems, most major religions agree with and most don't condone the practice. (but many say there could be time when they are warrented) What I object to, when it comes to abortions, are the abortions of "convenience". As I have stated before, I strongly feel that the choice happens before a baby is concieved (unless that choice is taken away, for example through rape or another violent act) and once a woman and man make the choice to have sex, they need to be prepared for all of the consequences which includes a possibility of getting pregnant. If they are not mature enough to handle that truth, then they probably aren't mature enough to have sex. I believe if you don't want to get pregnant and you want to have sex there are still pleanty of ways to prevent pregancy. But if a mother's life is in danger, if she was raped - then I think it should be her choice. But that doesn't change the fact, it is a life she is terminating. As you stated, at that point it's the lessor of two evils. Also, I am 100% against any abortion that happens in the later half of the second and into the third trimester. By that time, it is a baby, it is a life and those abortions should be outlawed.
Again, thank you for sparking a debate. I am glad to live in a country where we both have the right to express our beliefs.