Bamabelle, you and I share the same world view as I am a Christian and also believe is Gods law. I was not trying to justify a single abortion, which I consider murder. I was trying to open up discussion between two drastically opposed world views. It is such a conditioned response on both sides to just rant at anyone who is ideologically 'on the other side' that I think we are eliminating the possibility of finding some common ground. This common ground while I am sure would be an ugly compromise to each side, might save millions of unborn
babies. The living God I know would cherish each of those lives saved.
Why can't we use religious people along with scientists on both sides of this issue to try to find that compromise? It will never happen if all discussion is out of the question. The rapid degeneration of this thread is clear illustration of the hatred of both sides. Is this hatred in keeping with Gods higher law? Are we called to try to be peacemakers? Thank you again for an intelligent response.

Thank you for an intelligent and thought out reply. It is always difficult to precisely articulate the perfect intent of ideas in any discussion. This is even more difficult in regards to this extremely divisive issue. I also base my life on my faith and Gods law or the moral law. That was not really the point of my attempt to try to deal with the realities of the society we live in as Christians.
I was trying to encourage those on both sides of this issue to think about how far apart they really are and then also to start to come to terms with the magnitude of 40 million abortions. If we could have real dialog with the help of scientists of both ideological persuasions, and then modify the laws to prevent 1 million abortions a year in this country, wouldn't that be an improvement of the present horrific situation?

Why is anyone surprised that a Harvard professor who has made a career out of African-American studies sees the world and everything that happens through the goggles of black vs. white? This being said, enough already! The guy was exhausted from a long flight home and over-reacted and in ridiculous fashion. The officer did a great job handling the situation until he decided to arrest Gates instead of shutting his door and telling him to have a nice day, after Gates had proven it is his house.
The first amendment protects our speech! This is especially true on our own property and in our own homes! It is not against the law or a crime to say rude things to a police officer while you are in your own home, it is just stupid and in this case racist on Gates part. Do my fellow members of the 912 project really want to further restrict our 1st amendment rights? Think people, it is there to protect peoples right to say things that the statists don't like or that we may find offensive. Next time it may be one of us who is arrested as we tell the police officer to get off our property and get a warrant before they can search our homes! I worked in government and with police officers for 29 years and believe me they abuse our constitutional rights all the time. Though I strongly feel they do a great job 99% of the time. I have seen them just walk right into a persons home hundreds of times and start searching with no more just cause than a neighbor called 911.
The president even getting involved was I agree telling in regards to his racial biases, but it is the ever growing police state that is a much more dangerous threat to our liberties!

First, there is no justification for the murder of this man. Even though I personally believe he is a mass murderer himself. The reality is that he was operating, no pun intended, within the law. I also recognize that there is no way that in this increasingly secular society we are ever going to pass laws that completely eliminate abortion. Why don't we bring some reason to the debate and not just faith or emotion. That applies equally to the 'pro-choice' side of the issue.
Thinking about the extremes can help the majority of us realize that maybe there is room for an intelligent science based moderate position that would save millions of lives. One extreme wants no constraint on 'the right of a woman to make choices about her own body'. The reality of this is that the 'fetus' has no recognition as a person until the umbilical cord is cut after delivery. The other extreme dig in their heels and don't consider abortion an option even in cases of rape,incest, or to save the live of the mother.
The truth is that the vast majority of us are somewhere between these two extreme positions. Why can't we use all of the scientific information we have about the development of the baby and also take into consideration personal responsibility, in an attempt to find a compromise in the laws that would eliminate the vast majority of abortions but allow the very early termination of a pregnancy by a women as a personal choice?
When we as pro-life people focus on things like the morning after pill, that prevents a fertilized ovum from attaching to the uterus wall, we seem completely irrational to the secular mind. This subverts the possibility of any reasonable compromise that could save millions. Is it more important to be right or to save as many babies as we can? Wouldn't it be better to make a clear time frame that abortion is legal, very early in a pregnancy, and allow the morning after pill? Maybe we could actually compromise and thus prevent all of these 'late abortions'. Lets say for the sake of argument, in the first 4 weeks of pregnancy.
The beauty of working towards a science based and moral compromise is that the focus could then shift to the real issue. The lack of respect for life in our culture and the redemption of the soul of the woman who is contemplating abortion as an option. In the mean time we would also save hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives.

Just one more way that the Government can search your home! Did you know that the FCC now has the right to forcefully enter your home if you have a wireless internet router up and running! Not sure of the specific law or when it was passed but the point remains the same. We are at the mercy of the federal govt. Now they can kick our doors down if they see fit because we are using wireless internet in our homes. This wouldn't be the reason just the
justification if they want to enter our homes.
Are we really that far from a total police state? If I may I would like to remind Americans that either extreme really has no respect for actual "freedom". It is not always left vs.right people! This is about the desire to invade our private rights by both extremes and grow the centralized Government. Each side just has their particular ways they want government to control our lives. How far we have come from the idea that the individual is more important than the Government. God help us.

I also like free markets and embrace any solution that moves us in that direction. Can I give you an example of how the "supposedly free market" is functioning now. I recently spent 3 days in the hosp. The bill was 14,000 dollars. My insurance company has a negotiated percentage that they will pay for this hospital stay and all the tests, etc. They paid 6,000. The rest of that bill is written off by the Hospital. My co-pay was 250. Not a bad deal for me right. Well here is the problem. If I didn't have insurance the hospital would be coming after me for not 6,000 but for the whole 14,000. They would ruin my credit, sue me for it, etc. This happens to hardworking middle class Americans all of the time. This is criminal. Obviously the 'free market' cost was 6,000 not 15,000. The cost is "jacked up" by the hospital so it can write off these huge losses from these inflated bills and avoid taxes on profits. Your thoughts?

Thank you sir for a very well thought out solution. I kind of like your sliding scale approach to distributing the cost of insuring everyone. At least everyone would contribute something if not equally. In a sense it is an equal contribution in as much as it is an equal burden on each persons ability to pay. It also is small enough to not diminish a persons drive to succeed and work hard to improve their income, like a highly progressive income tax does. Thank you again for your thoughtful posts and try not to be discouraged by the lack of response. I also get frustrated with our seemingly obsessive desire to name call and vent and focus on ideological debate, rather than create solutions to problems.

To kgeorge,
I want to thank you for taking the time and doing your homework on this issue. Your solution is well thought out and practical. In fact we would have almost no poor elderly if people were taught by our schools and also their families to 'pay themselves first' as your solution suggests. I have 2 children and am teaching them these same sound financial ideas myself. The road to real fiscal success is not a hard one if we start young. What a shame that the road to financial success and security is never even mentioned in the first 12 years of a persons education.
Thank you again for an excellent post.

Guantanamo should have never been built! We would not have this mess if we had kept the terrorists, enemy combatants, etc in the Afganistan and Iraq. This was a huge policy mistake of the Bush administration. It caused us also to violate our own constitution! Read Judge Napolitanos' book 'Constitutional Chaos'. It is fantastic and eye opening. Don't get me wrong, I love and admire George Bush and was an ardent supporter most of the time. He just got bad advice sometimes from Ashcroft and others. They have also imprisoned American citizens at Guantonamo for over 2 years and not allowed them trials or attorneys! This is just as unconstitutional as the raid on Waco Texas by the Clinton administration. If we pick and choose the Liberties guaranteed us by the founding documents and our laws, we are no different than those in power now! Libertarians unite!

I see a PATTERN HERE PEOPLE! Have you noticed that every time this administration is passing some new HUGE spending program or abusing and stretching the power of the President. They keep all of us preoccupied with some small outrage as a diversion? Remember the AIG bonuses? About 350 million, while they rammed through 700 TRILLION in TARP spending. The outrage with a few pork projects while they rushed through an emergency (and unread) 750 trillion spending bill? The bemoaning of executive pay while the President bestowed upon himself the authority to fire the head of a private company and give half of a carmaker to its union, while its bondholders money was stolen! How about the diversion of giving a commencement speech at Notre Dame, while
Cap and Trade works its way through Congress. This is a strategy. Keep the people involved and outraged with some small rifle fire in the woods, while you drive tanks down main street! Some dead people got checks! Oh my!
Meanwhile the Federal Reserve has 3 trillion they can't or won't account for!!!!!!!! Do you get my drift?