This is a great column. Unfortunately, you can explain this to the left wing in this country (and sure to be on this message board) and they will never understand why a culture of life is important. I know, I know we Republicans care about babies until they are born - clever- and completely untrue.
If you read about the born alive protection act you'll find out that it was supported by nearly everyone (planned parenthood among others) even some very liberal members of Congress - but not Obama - pretty frightening actually

A thought on the comments of Star Parker and “Right On! I think that issues like abortion and the judicial braches role in government are legitimate issues to be discussed, unfortunately when your resort to labeling and name calling against those that have a different point of view you close down the conversation before it can even start. Just once it would be nice to have an intelligent conversation about these issues that does not degenerate into name calling before the conversation even starts. This does not apply just the two of you but goes for people on all sides of the issue, since they all seem to want to do so.

This article is absolutely correct and all the information in it is easily accesible and searchable on the internet.

Bob, What?! There is no name-calling only facts and truth. This is a discussion that needs to be heard. I am emailing this article to everyone I know. All of this information I have read before, but there are too many people out there voting for Obama's brand of "change" without seeing it for the smoke and mirrors that it is. If the abortion topic isn't of interest to you, look into his tax plan, his "vision" for health care, or his plan for Iraq. He is a dangerous choice for our country.

@Bob. Exactly what name calling did either of those two use?

You want civil dialog and rational discussion, and that's exactly what you got from Star Parker and "Right On!"

You lost me, Bob.

I catch some assumptions from Mr./Ms.7:49 that just can't be proven. First, the president, whoever he/she is, has no authority to require or to stop a legal abortion. Even those advised to have one for health reasons are not forced to abort. Second, let's not pretend that there are not plenty of Republicans who have legal abortions every year. To me the frightening part is the prospect of the state taking over this decision from individual men and women. That's what recriminalizing the procedure is all about, isn't it? The final irony is that many of those favoring recriminalization are the same people who claim that there is way too much government in their lives already. It's the classic conservative way of thinking: Tiny government for what I'M doing. Maximum government for what YOU'RE doing.

Star Parker evidently sees her job as attacking Senator Obama every week in print. I'm sure we'll see more of these "popgun" attacks.

Great point Bob! I'm on the opposite side of the abortion augument than "Right On!" above but I couldn't agree with you more.

I suspect we could find answers to even the perplexing issue of abortion if we all took the time to listen, understand and fully and deeply consider the points being made by proponents of the other side.

Thats a debate worth having and participating in!

Well said

No matter which side of abortion you are on (either baby or fetus,) it is important to know a candidates views. It would be nice to know if they favor a judge that will follow the constitution or one who will legislate without worrying about congress.

@ Mark B - exactly what assumptions did I make? I just stated (correctly)that Obama voted against (legislation similar to) the born alive protection act in the Illinois State Legislature.
No one said the President could take away a woman's right to an abortion. They can, however, appoint Supreme Court Justices e.g. Ruth Bader Ginsburg that can make sure it is a very long time before State's can rightfully decide whether abortions will be allowed. That right should have never been usurped by the Federal Government. Have you ever heard of Federalism?
Obama's view goes way beyond "pro-choice" When a fetus is unsuccesfully aborted and therefore "born" you have to be pretty cold-blooded to still want to "abort" that baby.

Excellent article Star!

And I congratulate you on your honesty despite having the experience in your own life of killing several of your children through abortion. To recognize the act for what it truly is must be very difficult for you with those recollections to deal with. I applaud you.

My biggest complaint about Obama has always been his cavalier attitude about the idea of killing unborn children. It is a complete show-stopper for me which prevents me from considering him for President despite finding his views on many others things quite appealing.

Jenna,

The most dangerous economic, social, educational and foreign choice for President this year would be 4 more years of George Bush.

Recent disapproval ratings say that 74% of Americans think 4 more years of Bush would be a bad thing.

We survived 8 years of W's tyranny. I suspect the country is great enough to withstand even the most pessimistic assessment of what an 8 year Obama presidency would look like.

I say its morning in America again! Care to join me for breakfast?

Looks to me that the closer a black man comes to the White House - the freakier the neocons are getting.

Joe Moe, my concern with Star Parker is I fail to see how calling someone’s thoughts bizarre is helpful. And with respect to Right on I fail to see how starting with the stated assumption that you “unfortunately you can never explain this top the left wing in this country (and sure to be on this message board)…” is constructive or relevant to forwarding the conversation. I agree that much of Star Parkers article was very good but sadly by the end fail into the same trap of name calling.

First Jeana let me refer you back to my comments to Joe Moe. Secondly please tell my why you think Mr. Obama is such a “dangerous choice” and “Nothing but smoke and mirrors.” Please give us some examples that we can discuss. I am happy to discuss abortion, what do you see as the legal grounds for preventing women from having abortions? I personally do not care for abortions but I have trouble making a legal argument against it.

you need a legal argument? mmmmm.... maybe because it is against the law to murder a person in the US

I see when the going gets tough, the conservatives start shooting their mouths off again with the morality card.

As if this is going to change Roe v Wade.

Legal Argument? Murder and abortion under the law are considered as two very different things. Perhaps a legal argument was not fair question since it is the laws that you are seeking to be changed to stop abortions. What is the logical reasoning behind eliminating abortions and how do we logically decide when life becomes life.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion. According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe v. Wade is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, was decided at the same time.

The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. These court rulings affected laws in 46 states.

Sorry that anonymous post about murder and abortions being seen as two seperate things under the law was my post.

Are you defending the practice of partial-birth abortion?

To anon...from your fingertips to the Supreme Court!

What a great society we live in when humans rationalize killing an innocent human being. As if there should even be a discussion about this.

Shows more about our inability to cherish life.

Bob, instead of criticizing others and their manner of trying to communicate, maybe you should lay out a position on any of the issues. Typical lib, can't debate the issues so tries to shut down the messenger...couldn't help myself :)

I don't believe in abortion but I do not believe it should be a political issue. Especially in a time when there are so many other things to worry about like the economy, Iraq, Iran, gas being $4 a gallon, gas potentially being $8 a gallon, oil drying up and the need to find an alternative to this. And his position on sex education? Ridiculous! I can teach morals and sex education to my kids at home, they are not incompatible. You have to give them the information they need to make correct choices, but I'd rather have my kid repenting of a sexual sin than getting pregnant or sick and still having to repent of the sexual sin.

Pity this always seems to fall upon "morals and values" of the religious right. Whatever happened to "free agency"???

Make it illegal and we'll be back to hangers in allys.

I do not advocate abortion, but i DO advocate the right to choose for one's self.

“Dear Bob” you clearly have not bothered to go back and read all my post in this thread and I hope you will do so. I have absolutely no problem debating the issues with anyone. In case my position is not clear for those that have read the thread it is simply this, I do not care for the practice of abortion but I have difficulty finding justification to restrict another persons right to have one passed on the current laws, case precedent, the fourteenth amendment, and reason. I do not think it is a good idea to start making laws based solely on my own beliefs or the icky factor. As far as partial birth abortions, again we have clear laws and precedent surrounding those things. If there are reasons to change them lets discuss them.

To those who hate the Law of the Land (aka Roe v Wade) I suggest you contact Hatch, Bennett, Romney, et al, and see if you can influence them somehow.

Otherwise, if you refuse to go along with the Law of the Land and the 46 states supporting that law, there are many, many other countries you can move to and ... blah, blah, blah ...
(you know the rest).

@Bob. Calling an idea "bizarre" and then going on to explain why you think so is not "name calling." Nor is stating a sense of frustration (realistic or not) that a certain segment of the population won't listen to reason "name calling."

This is "name calling": Conservative whacko! Redneck nutjob! Idiot! Spawn of Satan! Rush O'Hannity lemming! Mindless sheep!

As to the discussion on hand, a few random thoughts.

1) Those who hold Roe v. Wade in such high esteem need to remember it was a handful of judges who came up with that. A handful of judges can undo it. The discussion has to be deeper than, "Well, that's what they said about it 30 years ago, so that's the way it is." Appeal to Roe v. Wade is fruitless.

2) The legal grounds for limiting abortion is simply this: right to life. It's a living human, and we don't have the right to destroy human life as arbitrarily as we are doing (how many MILLIONS of legal but immoral abortions thus far?) Society is obligated to protect the defenseless among us.

3) This won't be much of an issue in the coming election. Let's face it.

Just curious.

Is sperm life?
Is an egg life?

Does something "die" if the seed and egg are wasted?

"Every sperm is sacred" - from A Monty Python sketch

Joe Moe -
These are angry times.
But November is closing in fast.
Have hope.

My cousin's baby was diagnosed in utero with anencephaly--no upper brain. The doctors let it live till 6 months and then chemically induced delivery. The baby died at birth. Legal or illegal? Moral or immoral? Come on, right-wingers, should my cousin and her doctor go to jail? I want to know what you think....

Lets try a different direction...

Starr Parker wrote "But values and morals are absolutes"

Ms. Parker is wrong on this. Morals and values, while sacred and important, are not absolute any more than the foundation of a home is absolute.

If your family grows and your house needs to be expanded, are you going to say I can't, the foundation won't allow it. No you're going to expand it to make room for the new reality in your world.

So it is will value and morals. As a person gains additional understanding (inspiration) and validates it as truth (confirmation), they must either expand their morals and values or say the inspiration and confirmation was false.

If this is not the case there is no need for inspiration / revelation today.

Any of us who claim to be seeking truth must be constantly adjusting (hopefully in the right direction) our values and judgments to reflect our new understanding of truth.

@Phil. I appreciate the case study. It will make people think. Including me.

Some won't accept abortion on any conditions.

Most abortion opponents are willing to make allowances for severe medical reasons like in your cousin's situation. The slippery slope of defining "severe" is problematic, but not insurmountable.

What really makes me sick to the stomach are the abortions of convenience. "I don't want to be pregnant, so I'll have an abortion." I think most pro-lifers feel that way. I think I will be content when abortions of convenience are no more.

Does anyone have any data on how many abortions are abortions of convenience (i.e., without substantial medical indications)? Does such information exist? (The reactionary in me wants to speculate that abortionists don't allow collection of that data because they don't want it known how prevalent these types of abortions are, but I'll refrain...haha).

Until abortion of convenience is done away with, it is and will be a stain on our society.

Joe Moe, you and I found a point of agreement those calling conservatives wacko rednecks nut jobs or anything else is exactly the kind of discourse I find very unhelpful. As to your points on abortion you are right it was decided by a group of Supreme Court judges based on their looking at current laws and weighing that against the 14th amendment. Do judges ever get it wrong of course and should the debate stop just because a decision is reached no, but please explain why you think there is grounds for changing these decisions and/ or the laws. As to your argument that it is a “right to life” I respect that your belief that a fetus is a life, however the law is currently based on the best medical knowledge of the time of when life becomes viable. If your position is based on your belief system, I respect your right to that belief I just personally am not comfortable basing my decision solely on me beliefs.

The other concern with stating absolutes is it kind of shuts down conversation. Because it sets evrything up as I am right and anyone with a diffrent point of view is wrong. Its hard to find understanding in that type of situation. unless the person holding this postion is willing to acknowledge it is a personal belief not absolute fact for everyone.

To Phil - sorry about that situation, any idea as to why the doctors allowed your cousin to carry to six months before the induced delivery?
My cousin was born with one half of his brain (not sure exactly what was there upper, lower, left, right), I moved away and lost contact with them but he was still alive living in a care center at the age of 20. At that time he was being taught to use a spoon to eat.
Very sad situations that some of us have to deal with.

When conservatives can come up with civil discourse that does not include the demonized version of the word liberal (used in every other sentence) and actually presents something with substance that can serve their fellow Americans, then you will also see the left discontinuing their counter-attacks.

At the moment, it is not wise politically to just sit back and let the Rush O'Hannity's have a field day.

That's how the current administration came into being.

Nobody has the right to give a thumbs up or thumbs down to anything as personal as an unwanted pregnancy.

That is why God is invented.

I am not a "right winger" but I would like to add my condolences to you and your cousine. It is a tragic situation and I agree with you that those decisions are better left to the individual and their doctor. As much as we would like things to be clear cut, black and white, right or wrong they just are not.

Please note that roe v Wade was decided long before the days of ultrasound. Thanks to ultrasound many, many pregnant mothers and fathers are seeing that a month old fetus is not just "a glob of tissue" and choosing not to abort and that's a great thing. I'm not some crazy right winger like Eric Rudolph who wants all abortion outlawed. I am interested in issues like partial birth abortion, unsuccesful abortions (baby survives)and parental notification.
What really angers people like me (reasonable right of center) is when concerned parents want legislation that requires parental notification before abortions are performed on girls younger than 18 and get attacked by the ACLU and various other left wing organizations. Is that really too much to ask for? I have to think that maybe Obama would find that unreasonable.

Right On!,

You were doing so well until the last sentence. Who cares what Obama, Bush, McCain, Clinton, Hatch or any other D or R thinks or doesn't think?!

What's important is that we begin and maintain a civil and cordial discourse on this important subject. I applaud your efforts to respond to Bob's invitation earlier today!

Just leave politics out of it. We'll worry about that later.

I cannot personally speak for the ACLU or other “left wingers,” but I can tell I think in most cases it maybe the best course of action (I know I would want to know if my daughter was having any type of medical procedure) but there are also to often cases where underage girls have a legitimate concern about their physical safety if their parents are told, such as cases of history of abuse by a parent. I understand these are not always the case but there needs to be something in place that helps to insure the safety of these girls. I am not sure I understand your argument about ultrasounds, how does seeing a fetus in an ultrasound translate to medical evidence of viability. I do not mean that in a flippant way I just want more information on what your position is.

I have to disagree with those who frame the debate with the words "right to an abortion" and "viability". No where do you see these words in the Constitution. They are words created out of thin air by SCOTUS.

What do you think being pregnant means? A tree is going to come out? A bike? A table?

You can label "it" whatever you want to satisfy your ability to kill "it" but that doesn't make killing a baby right. And their is no "right" to do it either.

How sad is it for our society to claim moral highground to say that we have a "right" to kill a baby. There is no plausible argument to say killing a baby is of virtue.

Your premise is wrong, and so was SCOTUS, therefore your conclusion is wrong.

As for truth...Truth never changes. It is always truth and always will be. Some people understand truth some don't. That in no way means values and morals change. The only thing that changes is your own understanding of truth. And when humans again actually value life, then we will scream for abortion to be "aborted"!

Obama is a joke!

Right On! I want back and read your post I think I may have miss understood what you where saying about ultraosounds. If so I apologize. I to would like to thank you for engaging me in a civil discourse

So ... a candidate who does not favor a huge, draconian change to the nation's abortion laws is getting "let off easy" by the media?

I'm sick and tired of abortion and gay marriage being the Republicans' central plank. The government should not be in the business of making morality decisions for citizens.

Abortion doesn't affect me one bit. It's the economy, the war and the health-care shambles that our next president needs to tackle.

Bread-and-butter issues, not fake grandstanding and polarization!

At the core of this "debate" (sounds like just more partisan politics to me)
is THIS very real fact:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

It is law.

What is about the law you don't understand?

The court decision was based on the fourteenth amendment not the on medical viability. Medical viability became part to of the conversation in trying to set reasonable limits on when an abortion is the right of the women and when the fetus became medically able to survive outside the womb. It sounds like your concern is with the concept of when life begins. What would be your reasoning behind changing the definition of when life begins? As to your other statements I can only say I respectfully disagree but unfortunately we cannot have a discussion when you take an absolute black and white position based on your beliefs.

Re: a couple of words
(neocons cannot make their point in a "couple of words")

"Obama is a joke!" (nice couple of words neocon)

Suggestion: Sounds to me that Obama is supporting the existing law (Roe vs Wade)

Until that is changed, your political slams are nothing more than stupid right-wing rhetoric.
Call your congressman. Call your senator. Call Mitt Romney. That's the way to start the process.

What is it about the Roe vs Wade law people don't understand?

Where I live it is getting late and I must go, to those that engaged me in civil conversation I thank you and to those that stuck to there name calling mantras I guess I can only say the silly season goes on!

Oh Anon...we understand perfectly...

We understand that since liberals can't win in legislatures, they run to the courts to "create" law and right for them.

What don't you understand that sodomy is against the law. Better call your congressman, legislature, Hillary, Obama....but whatever you do, don't run to the courts to have them make law for you again.

Bob, life is black and white. Truth is truth. It's not up for interpretation. You don't like absolutes because it doesn't leave you wiggle room to justify whatever. Life is life. Always has been, always will be.

What's horrendous is that you want to be able to kill a living human.

Anonymous was lucky that his/her mom made the decision she did. Too bad.

Obama is a joke. Something to laugh at. His positions are shallow and hollow. This article hits on him absolutely correctly.

If you people don't like talking about abortion and moral issues, then quit ramming your version of morality down ours. Again, try to legislate your morality. Can't do it. So off to the courts we run...

Killing someone who has no ability to defend himself. That's the height of liberal stupidity!

Tell ya what Bob,
Why not contact Hatch, Bennett, Romney,etc. with your beef.
If you get anywhere in your attempt to get Roe vs Wade overturned, please get back with us.
Otherwise, please respect the law of the land.
Things work much better that way.
And if you would prefer to demonize a woman for finding herself in a terrible jam - kindly keep your judgement to yourself. Many thanks.

“A couple of words” I am curious to know where in the constitution you glean the right to legislate your morality, and before you say the majority rules let me just remind you that first you may not be in the majority and secondly even if you are the founding fathers frequently cautioned against the tyranny of the majority on the minority. Which is why we have the governmental system of check and balances. The question is where in the constitution does it say you have a right to prevent me from having an abortion

A Couple of Words wrote:

"As for truth...Truth never changes" Yes truth doesn't change, but our understanding of it changes (hopefully deepens and expands) over time. As our understanding changes then our beliefs and behavior must reflect our new perceptions. This process is how man adapts to enlightenment and acquires wisdom. To say otherwise is to defy the power of inspiration and revelation.