marjon9

The definition of what is "moral" does change depending on the views of society. George Washington owned hundreds of slaves, yet he is considered one of the greatest human beings in the history of the world. Mothers everywhere teach their children to be like George, especially around cherry trees. Old George's slave ownership is rightly condemned in the strongest terms in the world today, but he is forgiven because people understand that values were different at that time, and no one is immune from the influence of their environment. That is why the "slavery" argument is so weak and unpersuasive. The analogy does not hold because, as you know, there was a time when slavery was considered acceptable by society. In the case of slavery that does not excuse it, but still people do understand why historical figures like Washington and Jefferson had slaves, and they are not condemned for it, like they would be today. Applying this reality to the abortion issue, the fact is, there is a great deal of dispute today about when human life begins. In the world as it is today it DOES matter that the alleged "person" resides in the womb. There is no escaping the undeniable fact that a large number of people, probably the majority, including scientists, do not believe that a cluster of cells is a human being. In 200 years this view may be considered barbaric - but then again, it may not. There is no necessary correlation between abortion and slavery. In 200 years, science may prove that a fetus is not a human being. Moreover, it is absolutely not comparable to say "why not kill children after three months, or after a year, after all we get to decide when human life begins, don't we?" This argument is absurd. All Americans, and most people everywhere for thousands of years, have always agreed that killing 3 month old children is totally unacceptable. There is no dispute about that like there is about when life begins. The fact is, morality is not an absolute, handed down by the alleged "WORD OF GOD." In some societies, certain things are considered acceptable, whereas in other societies, these same things are considered mortal sins. In this present world we live in, as it actually is today, abortion is not remotely similar to slavery. There is no moral comparison to be made there. The majority of Americans do not believe that a clump of cells is a human being. Science is not unanimous on the issue one way or another. In light of this undeniable reality, one group of people cannot simply stand on a rock, declare that they own the one truth, and force everyone else to live by your moral code.

The one comment I have to the above is that many, many unwanted pregnancies occur with people who have taken precautions to avoid pregnancy. It's not all about reckless and irresponsible teenagers who don't have a care in the world. It's not just people who weren't "careful" who seek abortions. Beyond that I know we will never agree on where the line should be drawn here. I agree with a lot of what you say except for the final resting place of who has the choice. I'll say again that I am not in any way "pro-abortion." I just know for me that it is not my place to force another person to take a life altering course of action that conflicts with their own personal morality. But again, I know we will never agree on this.

Just to clarify, I do not believe that anyone on this forum is trying to force their views on others. That is not my point or my claim. My claim is that many people on this forum support forcing others to take actions against their will, that is, to force a woman to carry an embryo to full term when that woman does not agree that this is the right course of action. I don't think you can deny that what I am saying is clearly correct. You can find this point made in post after post on this thread. For example, look at the post right before yourse from Sweethot, where she says: "I also understand there may be some extreme cases where abortion would be necessary. Only extreme cases. But the everyday young girl who made a mistake and wants to get rid of it, no, that is not right. It shouldn't be an option for her either. There is nothing wrong with giving your baby up for adoption." In other words, Sweethot, and most if not all of the "pro-life" advocates on this forum, support forcing women to carry an embryo to full term, regardless of how much this conflicts with the moral code of the woman. Elena, you've said several times that no one on this forum is trying to force their views on others. But please consider that this is not the issue. It is not people's "views" I am talking about. Rather, it is actions. I respect people who have the view that abortion is murder and an embryo is a baby. But I do not believe that such people should be able to use the police power of the state to force other people to take actions relating to those views that conflict with their own moral code. This is especially true in the case of abortion, when the majority of Americans are not pro-life, and the consequences to the women involved is so enormous. Sweethot says that "there is nothing wrong with giving your baby away for adoption." And this is certainly true. But the actual point she is making is not that there is nothing "wrong" with adoption. Her point is that women should be forced against their will to carry an embryo to full term and give it away for adoption when this is in profound conflict with the woman's own personal morality. This is not right, and again, I repeat, American society will never allow this to happen.

Romney previously was pro-choice, of course, and recently changed.

I agree that people on LBT are simply expressing their opinions. But that does not change the fact that in the real world, a group of Americans who are in the minority have absolute certainty in their "correctness," and they believe that they have a right to use the police power of the state to force everyone else to live by their beliefs, at a huge cost those people's lives. Just because you are absolutely certain you are right, and break out the latin or greek roots of various words to prove it, does not change a thing. This is a dispute where well-meaning, good, honest, moral, intelligent people disagree. One group does not have the right to force its views on others. And after decades of freedom of choice in this country, there is no going back again on this issue. This is one genie that is out of the bottle. Regardless of what the Supreme Court says, or what anyone else says, the majority of Americans who are pro choice will never go back. That much is clear.

My opinion on the matter is not the point. The fact is, people disagree about it. You ask "why is there such a difference of opinion on that?" Well, I don't really know why, but clearly there is. In fact, it appears that the majority of Americans disagree with you on this issue. I have heard many people say, for example, that they do not believe that an embryo that is months away from viability outside the womb is a "human being." I'm simply saying that this is a matter of conscience not of science. You say that this is why we need more "education" about when a baby is formed, but it's not a matter of "education." Many pro-choice people are fully aware that a heartbeat can be detected at an early point. They still, in their own soul and in their own conscience, do not believe this is a "baby." I fully understand that you think it is. But that does not give you the right to force that view on others, especially when the consequences are so great in the life of the other person. You don't have the right to say "I'm correct about this, because, I just know I am, and therefore I get to send the police out to your house and force you to live by my moral code." No matter how sure you are that you are right, you don't get to force that view on others. Especially when the "others" are in the majority.

The fact of the matter is many people do not believe that an 8 or 12 week old embryo is a "baby," and many people do not agree that abortion is an "awful, awful" practice. In addition, even if people agree that abortion is "awful," they believe that the "awful" consequences to the mother deserve priority in this situation where there can be no winner. I know you disagree with these things, and I respect your opinion. But regardless of how heartfelt your beliefs may be, you do not have the right to force your views on others, and use the power of the state to force women to follow a course of action they do not believe in, and that has lifetime consequences. Many people believe that an 8 or 12 week old fetus is a "baby." But the fact is, many people do not. You make the argument that we need to step in and help these "babies." But when you make that argument you are assuming that you are correct about the exact thing that is in dispute. You assume that you are right that a fetus is a "baby," and that therefore everyone else should live by that rule. But the whole point is, not everyone agrees with that. You can't succeed in this argument by simply saying "I'm right because, well, I just know I am." That is not a good enough basis for forcing your morality on people who disagree with you. In fact, probably the majority of Americans do not agree with you on that point.

The thing is, Elena, so many of the so-called pro-life faction does fully intend to seek legislation to make abortion illegal, and to lobby to overturn Roe v. Wade, etc., and to use the police power of the state to force women to take actions against their will that have profound lifelong consequences for the mother. That's the whole issue as far as I'm concerned. Let me ask you a question. You say that you are not trying to "force" anyone to do anything. Does that mean that you support Roe v. Wade? If not, if you support overturning Roe v. Wade, then you support a course of action designed to force women who disagree with you to live by your moral code. This is not a personal attack, it is just an discussion. But I think it is a point worth raising. If you support overturning Roe v. Wade, then in my opinion you cannot honestly say that you are not trying to "force" anything on anyone else. People who are interested in overturning Roe v. Wade have every intention of forcing women to live their lives by a moral code with which they profoundly disagree. As for your own pro-life point of view, I agree with quite a bit of it. I'm not the least bit pro abortion. What I am is pro choice. I hope you continue to do whatever you can to convince other people of your point of view. Just please keep the police power of the government out of the life of my wife and daughter. This is a personal choice, not for someone else to decide.

If you get a chance, you might enjoy a song by Iris DeMent called: Let The Mystery Be It's one of my favorites

I'm not exactly sure what a Maxi Man Penis Patch is, but they keep sending me advertisements for them in my e-mail. They further advise me that "The advantages of having a big penis are innumerable!" They should just team up with Nicorette and Hoodia, and with one patch you could quit smoking, lose weight, and become a "real man."

Sounds like my kind of place.

From what you say it sounds like the Canadian system actively protects the separation of church and state to the same degree it is done here. That's great news. As for me, I love Christmas decorations. We usually do quite a nice tree at my house, as well, because my wife is Christian. I hope to see Christmas decorations every place they can be all through the winter holiday season, including government buildings, courthouses, public squares, whatever, just as long as there are also decorations from other religions. On a related note, we have a bit of a scary development in our presidential race right now. Apparently Mike Huckabee has taken a big lead in the Iowa race. Huckabee is an impressive, down to earth guy who says a lot of intelligent things. But he is also a Baptist Minister and he has publicly stated in recent presidential debates that he does not believe in evolution. He also said in the past that he believes homosexuality is a sin, and that AIDs proves it, and that AIDs sufferers should be quarantined. This guy might actually win the Republican nomination for president. If that does not send shivers down your spine, what will? Fortunately people are so disgusted with Bush that it seems likely that a Democrat will probably win the presidency this time, but you never know. But just the thought that a large number of Americans would be inclined to elect a president who believes in creationism is simply breathtaking.

I know, that is the argument we hear over and over. That Christmas is cultural. But it is not only cultural. That's the point. This is one area where "political correctness" is called for. Fine, have your "cultural" Christmas displays, but have them in combination with the displays of other religions as well. Other religions are part of the "culture" of the United States as well as Christianity. The fact that there are more Christians than followers of other religions is beside the point. This is not about majority rule. This is about respect for individual freedom. When religion is presented in a state-sponsored environment, it is unacceptable to me to have the holiday of one particular religion put forth as "the norm." Christmas has a cultural element, but it also has a religious element. The two cannot be separated. When government buildings are all decked out in Christmas finery on the ground that this is "cultural," it ignores the message that is inevitably implied: that Christianity is the "correct" religion. This is offensive to me, and it gives a message that I am not a fully equal member of society. I'm not sure if this is a "Canadian/U.S." distinction, but this in the U.S. this has not been a hard issue for our Courts to figure out in this country. Under our Constitution, state-sponsored Christmas displays are unacceptable, whether or not they are labeled "cultural," unless balanced with displays of other religions. And "thank God" for that, if you'll pardon the expression.

The ACLU is not against Christmas. The ACLU is against situations where Chtristmas appears to be endorsed by the state as the "official" state holiday. The "prayer in school" people never seem to understand this point. Prayer-in-school advocates say things like, "we are the majority by a huge margin, why should a few members of minority groups be allowed to stop us from exercising our beliefs?" They also say that "people of other religious minorities can just ignore the prayer in the classroom if they are not interested," etc. But what is not understood by prayer-in-school advocates is that this country is not about "majority rule." Rather, this country is about "individual freedom," and about protecting an environment that treats every single law abiding person as equal, and of equal worth in the eyes of society. That is what is special about our way of life in the United States. That is why the separation of church and state is so central to our core values. When one group with its own particular beliefs acts like it has the "officially endorsed" version of the truth, then those who have minority beliefs are ostracized from mainstream society, and made to feel like outsiders, and less worthy in the eyes of society. I can tell you that I am profoundly offended by any hint of "officially endorsed" Christian prayer in a state sponsored environment. Of course, I am not the least bit offended by Christian prayer in a religious setting. Some of my best friends are Christians, as the saying goes. The ACLU is about protecting religious freedom. Their actions have nothing at all to do with an "attack on Christmas."

What did the toothless termite say when he came into the bar? Is the bar tender here?

It's also: Me -- as I demonstrate to my ex-girlfriend the results of wearing the new Maxi-Man Penis Patch

I think your views are very understandable. I support your right to do everything you can to influence others to believe the way you do. But to me, that is not the issue. The issue is, do you, and people who believe as you do, have the right to force others to live their lives by your beliefs through the establishment of laws and use of the criminal justice system. I do not believe you have that right. I understand that you will never be able to understand the pro-choice point of view. I have no interest in trying to convince you that this is the "right" point of view. But I do have an interest in stopping so-called "pro-life" advocates from using the police force of the state to require my wife, or my daughter to take actions in their own personal lives with which they strongly disagree. To me, this debate is always focusing on irrelavant issues. One side tells a story about beating hearts in the womb, another side tells a story about great tragedy caused by a woman having a child she could not handle, etc. But to me, these things are not the issue. The issue is, does one side have the right to force everyone else to live by their view of morality. I say no. Everyone should feel free to do everything they can to convince others of their point of view. But no one should have the right to force others to live by their moral code in this most personal of all decisions. I understand, of course, that "pro-life" people believe they have the right to force mothers to carry unwanted embryos to full term because they are "protecting the life of the baby." But the "life of the baby" is so intertwined with the life of the pregnant woman, and the consequences to the pregnant woman are so enormous, that her freedom of action must be protected. Unwanted pregnancy is never a happy thing, and sometimes it ends in tragedy either for the fetus or the mother. There is no "winner" with an unwanted pregnancy. The only real question is, who gets to decide what to do about it. Does the legislature get to make laws that determine the outcome, and force mothers to take actions that cause great tragedy in their lives? Or, is this a personal decision that must be made by the mother. I think the obvious answer is, the decision belongs to the pregnant woman.

Love those Boston Terrorists!!

I also highly recommend The Four Day Win by Martha Beck. It's all about dealing with Head Hunger.

I'm convinced that I'm eating pine trees every time I eat Grape Nuts. The taste is pretty close. I guarantee you that there are certainly no grapes in Grape Nuts. For that matter, I don't even think grapes have nuts. From my point of view the only real question is: "How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood." The answer is in every box of Grape Nuts. Every time I eat a bowl, I feel like I want to chuck wood.

To further encourage healthful eating including the nutty taste of Post Grape Nuts as part of a healthy breakfast, I share yet another significant Grape Nuts commercial from Yesteryear. Euell Gibbons is not involved. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBNepAcjQaU&feature=related]YouTube - Grape Nuts TV Commercial[/ame]

Here is a Euell Gibbons Grape Nuts Commercial on YouTube. I know you will enjoy it. I also point out that one thing I learned from this evenings exchange is the correct way to spell ol' Euell's name. So make yourself a big bowl of popcorn and curl up in front of the computer and enjoy this Euell Gibbons Grape Nuts Commercial. And then I'm sure you'll be in the mood to head on down that ol' ribbon o' highway and get yourself a box o' Grape Nuts. I know I will. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XJMIu18I8Y]YouTube - Euell Gibbons For Grape Nuts (fixed sound)[/ame]

Ewell Gibbons was a naturalist who wrote "Stalking the Wild Asparagus" He is probably best known today for being in Grape Nuts commercials in the '70s and '80s. Grape Nuts called on Ewell Gibbons in order to suggest that Grape Nuts was a very healthy and natural thing to eat. In this series of commercials, as part of the process of demonstrating his claim to fame as a naturalist, Ewell Gibbons famously explained: "Many parts of the pine tree are edible." Some of us are so ancient that we actually remember seeing these commercials (like me). Rumor has it that Ewell Gibbons died eating astroturf. That last sentence is not true. The rest is true.

As Ewell Gibbons explained, "Many parts of the pine tree are edible"

Good points, green