I agree with Carl

They should be prosecuted regardless. I guess you could make the argument that if it doesn't lead to a crime then it falls under Free Speech, but to me this is like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Whether or not someone died when you yelled fire shouldn't matter nearly as much as the fact that you had such an extreme potential to kill someone when you did.

Isn't it illegal to plot murder? Why aren't these people arrested and jailed before they can do harm? This is not a free speech issue. This is actively planning for and assisting with the murder of a living breathing human being.

I think the gray area is that it's perfectly legal to talk about and joke about murder, just not literally plan out how you're going to do it. I could say something to you to the effect of, "if I were going to blow up a train I'd plant the explosives in my bag and use a remote detonator." Such a statement can't be taken as a "plot" to murder though, because a. you have to calculate my actual sincerity of the statement and b. I used a quantifier ("if"). I agree, though, with your premise which is something has to be done about passing out fliers like this. The government, whether at the local or federal level, needs to act before someone else dies. This is ridiculous. We're willing to spend trillions of dollars to go after a bunch of teenagers with hand grenades and daddy's credit card, but we won't even consider protecting the rights of our citizenry here? What is up with our country?!?! Seriously!!!

I agree also...its no different than pulling the trigger.

These are Christian terrorist.

Criminal Solicitation, where you make statements which can be interpreted to directly incite a crime.

I think these posters would qualify.

I think even if nothing happens to these doctors, the folks passing out these papers should be fined ..... it goes a step too far ...it is inciting violence!

I agree with Joan about the podcast, Rachel. We no longer have TV service due to the abundance of advertising vs. actual programming. I get my news from the internet. So please post it as a podcast. Thanks.

You see, the abundance of actual advertising pays for the actual programming. The "how to pay for internet content" model has not worked its way out yet.

Just like many liberals, "we want it for free!"

@RobDon Give it a rest loser. When red states actually start paying for themselves, instead of feeding of the blue states, you might have an argument. When the residents of TX buy flood insurance from private insurers that are not subsidized by the federal government, you might have an argument. When the so called fiscally conservative Republicans choose to raise taxes on the rich instead of forcing the country to borrow from China, i.e. "we want it free," then you might have an argument. Until then, you're just coming off as a complete idiot.

It's not inadvertent! The 700 Club has Dominionist roots.

Jack, I think it is ridiculous to underwrite time and time again for people to rebuild in flood zones. Seems stupid to me. You want me to pay so you can rebuild your house ten times just because you like to live next to the river!
I'm on board with you, do you want to join me in an effort to change the law that states the second time you make a claim on government supported flood insurance you have to build on stilts or on another non-flood zone lot?

Is far as taxing the rich more to pay for spending, I'd suggest doing what we do in our household when income gets tight, CUT spending and waste!

I understand the need to help those temporarily down and those incapable of providing for themselves, but I don't want anyone to have to underwrite my choices.

I'm not the idiot. Someone who thinks they can watch TV content for free (without commercials) and someone who would defend that comes closer in my book.

And MechTrek, I often learn new words from reading your comments (and I mean that in a good way). I had to look up Dominionist. I agree there are extreme segments on the right and ultra-conservative religion that may fall under that category. Thanks for the education.

Robdon - I agree with the flood insurance stance, but better to outlaw building there in the first place. Leave it as a buffering area.

I am not against taxing the rich - we've had welfare for mega corporations and the wealthy for a long time. They got rich here - they should pay their fair share! We, and that includes the rich, should ALWAYS be cognizant of waste and spending.

I'm not against commercial tv - just the greed that takes half of the program time for advertising. I don't mind a few commercials - just don't get so greedy.

I don't understand what you mean by 'I don't want anyone underwriting my choices.

@RobDon...I agree with Jack, give it a rest. You like most conservatives deliberately misinterpret what liberals want done with their taxes. We don't mind paying taxes, all we ask is that our taxes be used and given back to us in the form of social programs that we will benefit from. Instead they are used to line the pockets of the already rich, and the politicians. Large corporations were given ten years of tax cuts with the understanding that they use these cuts to create jobs. Have you seen these jobs, in this country. Siting jobs created in China, Mexico, or India does not count, not to americans anyway. Every month I pay my cable bill and internet bill, and I am out a couple hundred dollars. What am I getting for free???

Katy,

I'm not against commercial tv - just the greed that takes half of the program time for advertising. I don't mind a few commercials - just don't get so greedy.

The greed here would be that of the programming/TV stations, not the advertisers. And I agree that the "rich" have a responsibility to pay their fair share. And I think that should be a higher rate than the "middle" class. I do not think they are the answer to our country's debt problem.

Scotch,

We don't mind paying taxes, all we ask is that our taxes be used and given back to us in the form of social programs that we will benefit from.

I don't want to benefit from a social program. I don't mind helping others temporarily or those incapable of taking care of themselves. I want my tax dollars going to infrastructure, law enforcement/military/border control, public education, and other things individuals can not do.

If you are paying for cable TV or watching commercial television you aren't getting anything (in that area) for free unlike the original poster who did not want to watch either but instead wanted the content on a podcast so she didn't have bother with commercials or cable cost...she wants it for FREE.

It reminds me of when Billy Graham was asked what he would do if his daughter announced she was gay. His response was that he would love her even more. His point was that life is hard enough on people following societies norms. People on different paths have an even more difficult time. You don't hate them, you love them.

I don't agree with people who engage in protests at Abortion Clinics and those that call people baby killers, etc. I don't agree with the hardship they bring to young girls who may already be fearful. This is not what I think Christians should be doing.

Having said that, we can still disagree on whether abortion is the right thing, and work to find solutions that will have the best possible outcome for all.

This reminds me of the "Christians" who show up at the funerals of fallen soldiers. It is horrible. But for the non-believers on this post or those of other religions, as humans we also realize that people have different maturity levels and some may be in the infancy of their Christian journey. I condemn their unChrist-like actions.

Having said that, we can still disagree on whether abortion is the right thing, and work to find solutions that will have the best possible outcome for all.

I agree with this and most of your other sentiments.

Excellent point!

Agree! Activists educate!

you are so right. how are these people any different than the taliban going around enforcing sharia law on everyone. they are trying to intimidate and terrorize people so that women don't have access to a legal procedure. these people and anyone who supports them by giving them money or shelter should be charged as accessories. i think the biggest thing though is there are people who grew up with the right to decide for themselves and just assume that it will always be there. i was born in 1972 and while I understand that this right is under attack, i feel that those who aren't paying attention don't.

Definition of terrorism (for the record):

the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/588371/terrorism

Also even though it doesn't put it in the definition I just gave, it is not considered an act of terrorism to kill a soldier for the point of political change. Or at least not terrorism in the way we use it in our common language. That's a form of revolutionary terrorism, which has a slightly different linguistic (and historical) context. The way we use the word "terrorism" in our language specifically refers to the killing of non-militarized citizens.

Yes...I suppose your correct...they are not activists...it demeans REAL activists like The Weather Underground, and MeCha, and The New Black Panthers...right?

[facepalm] Get a clue, Gary. Please get a clue about the subject BEFORE you insist on commenting, mmm'kay?

The Bible does say were are to judge, although carefully. We are to discern whether someone claiming to speak truth is actually speaking truth. We are to apply God's Word to determine moral decisions. We are to speak truth in love. And lots more.

We can not judge someone's final destination because we can not see their heart. Their words and behaviors give clues but this judgment is left up to God. I can tell you what the Bible says about those making a decision for or against Christ but I can not determine where you go when you die.

And lastly, the Bible does not give followers the right to carry out judgment on individuals. Any violence or threat of violence against an individual is not directed by God's Word.

If you can't judge, how do you decide to follow the laws of Christianity, and, for practicality's sake, which laws in the bible to reject (stone disobedient children)? How can you make an active decision that the bible should be obeyed?

All I can see that's possible is to pretend not to judge. Then go ahead and make moral decisions like everyone else.

I got into an argument with someone on facebook while I was pregnant which I find funny, because he kept insisting that the rights of the baby supercede a woman's rights. then he said he adopted two babies that girls were going to abort. well that's great. but how many unwanted kids are sitting in foster homes. Not everyone is in the same situation as you are. And there are times when it's better NOT to bring a child into a bad situation. OR if you are a woman whose boyfriend tells you he'll be there for you and then skips out leaving you alone. I told that guy that he had no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. Somehow he thought he had a right because he adopted two kids. IF he could have had his own would he have adopted them? i doubt it.

If you don't believe in abortion then don't have one I always say. It's funny how these folks want government to stay out of their business, but they can stick their noses in the business of women everywhere.

Ejpoeta; I love it when pro-lifers talk about adopting kids. Some statistics put abortions at about 1.5 mil a year...is he going to adopt 1.5 mil kids? Is it his intention to help raise 1.5 mil kids? If you don't want abortions, you'd better have a damn good sex education class AND birth control system. And I don't mean that silly abstinence garbage for a split second.

You are so right. As soon as the child is born the attitude is "Well you had the brat you take care of it. It's not our responsibility" Also is'nt it interesting how many pro-lifers are also strong advocates of the death penalty ?! How many are aware of the number of spontaneous abortions that occur ?

You hit the nail right on the head there. The fetus is a precious bundle of joy and potential that needs to be protected by everyone everywhere, but the child is someone else's problem.

I just have a problem when women say its THEIR choice alone. It is a women's body, but why does she have a choice on whether a man is a dad or a fetus donor. If they choose to abort, the guy doesn't have a choice, but if they choose to have the baby, then they want the guy to pay child support. If a women chooses to have the baby and the guy wants her to have an abortion, can he waive his responsibility since she let it grow into a baby?

So, what is the position of the liberals on that issue?

Katy - the man gets equal say over what happens to the pregnancy when the man faces equal physical risks and physical and economic disadvantages from carrying the pregnancy.

And, it does go both ways...if a man does not want to risk an unwanted child, there are certainly things he can do to prevent one, as well.

The liberal position is to use your own logic against you Katy. If a man wants choice then he should watch where he's ejaculating. He has more power over where he spits than a woman does, especially during sex. You know this as well as I do. Beyond that point the majority of men who want women to keep the baby and not abort are also men who have no intention of supporting that child what-so-ever. You're trying to make this argument into this ridiculous notion that men are somehow a victim in sex. Prey-tell Katy in our system of sex obsession who is it that peddles sex obsessiveness more? Is it men or is it women? Men want to pressure women into having sex and then if she gets pregnant, men want to have the decision. This is all about subservience to men and your sympathy for the father you don't even realize is playing into that system. If a man doesn't want to have a baby he shouldn't ejaculate into a woman period. If a man does want a baby then he should make sure that before he ejaculates she's okay with being pregnant. You and I have discussed this before and have went over the statistics. The majority of women who get abortions get abortions because they are single and cannot take care of the child. If a man is wanting her to keep the baby and she is aborting 99% of the time it's because that man either cannot take care of the child or will not and you know this. And guess what- the man isn't the one whom the baby is growing inside of which is why this falls onto a woman. As the saying goes if men could get pregnant and give birth, the abortion issue wouldn't exist.

So again, using your own logic against you (for new posters I am basing this off of previous discussions I've had with this individual), if a man is willing to ejaculate into a woman knowing full well that the consequence will be he may create a child and then lose it, he should choose otherwise. Before you said that a woman's body is the vessel of life and with great responsibility comes great power. Essentially the argument you made is that if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have sex. Us liberals use that same argument back. If a man doesn't want to lose his child he shouldn't create one in the first place. On a secondary note, regarding the woman's body is the vessel of life comment you made, I asked you what that made a man's balls and you completely ignored the question. It's ironic to me that you seem to think men can be responsible for creating children, but that abstinence only applies to women. And also, it's hypocritical for you to bitch about child support. If a woman has the child, which is the position that you advocate legally mandating, then what the bleep is she supposed to do if she can't support it? Again why is it that abstinence only applies to women? You may say "no no I want it to apply to men" but in reality you don't. You adhere to the same male mentality that he can have sex as much as he wants and that all consequence is born on the woman. Now you're trying to introduce this ludicrous notion into the argument that somehow it's mean or cruel to the man that he can't have domination over the fetus after sex. Good lord woman you are so insane I don't even know where to begin.

Abortion rights aren't going to be waived just because your religious beliefs hold that women should not be treated as equal citizens. Grow the bleep up.

Hit a nerve? Now days, whenever someone disagrees with a liberal, THEY are insane (Juan Williams, for instance, and he IS a liberal).

The point is there are plenty of things women can do also to avoid the situation. If a man ejaculates into his hand, there is no baby! There are plenty of things that women can do to avoid the whole situation! One is to take responsibility for your own actions, since you really can't control what someone else does. It is our body, and our responsibility to protect it!

My religious beliefs have nothing to do with my disagreement. We are equal but obviously biologically different and that can't be ignored.

I'm asking these questions, not to push my own ideas, but sincerely wanting to understand the argument from your side. And, some parts of it, I don't get! Do liberals think it is not a baby until it breathes outside the womb? Do they believe whether it is a baby or not, it doesn't matter as long as its inside a womans body? And, so all those other questions come to mind as I try to better understand the argument.

Seems to me that you are more interested in being able to have sex without risk or consequences, and that simply is not reality.

See what I mean Rob? You point out the flaws and instead of her answering them, she just talks over. No answers, no attempt to take anything in the conversation seriously. Talking to conservatives (you excluded and others like you) is 99% of the time futile because they just don't want to go anywhere near anything that contradicts how they think.

There is always a delicate line that has to be walked between people who are passionate about beliefs and that can be a challenge. I read someone where recently: B4U speak, listen. B4U write, think. B4U criticize, reflect. B4U quit, try again. Lessons I'm trying to put into practice.

MM: What about debating with you? You say you are for capital punishment then give me all the reasons why the liberals have a solid argument against it instead of defending your own position. Double Minded! You want to argue and be condesending. You seem to have ALL the answers. If someone challenges you, you resort to name calling and dismissal.

We were not discussing my personal feelings about capital punishment. I added that as an aside, because I do support it. Or perhaps a better way to put it is I really don't care either way. That was not, however, the context of what you asked and really had nothing to do with the conversation writ large. You asked why do liberals complain about capital punishment and then went on about the cost. I was explaining to you that liberals are opposed to capital punishment because they do not want to execute an innocent person. Even if only 10% of cases end up being an innocent person wrongly convicted for murder, there's no way to tell who that 10% applies to. Liberals get upset by the idea of an innocent person being put to death because most liberals see it as "it could happen to me" and wouldn't want to go through that personally. I've just now explained twice to you the liberal argument about capital punishment. Just because I can explain the argument does not mean that I have to agree with it. If you'd like to talk about my personal beliefs towards capital punishment then we can certainly do that, but that wasn't the context of your question. You wanted to know what liberals think about capital punishment and I told you. I don't agree with the argument, but it is logically solid. You can understand the intellectual merits of a different position than yours without automatically having to believe that position. I personally would rather be dead than rotting away for 20 years as an innocent person in jail. At least there's peace in death. That's my position about capital punishment. I don't see death as a form of punishment so I am neutral about it. Liberals have a very good point that innocent people shouldn't be killed, but I don't necessarily see death as a bad thing. So it's a 50/50 issue for me I can go either way. That's my personal position. That was not the context of your question or what we were talking about, but I've shared it anyways. And as for insults- I have tried to have a serious conversation with you. You are pretty much off your rocker and because of that I don't feel the need to treat you seriously anymore. You want me to respect you in an argument then show that you've actually put some thought into your positions and have done some research. Until that happens I don't have a reason to respect you (at least intellectually speaking).

whatever....

@Katy-2266405: I thought I'd jump into this conversation, if no one minds. You mentioned that you have a problem with people saying that it is a woman's choice alone, because the man involved often suffers consequences (grief/child support).

In a perfect world, all children would be planned, all partners would be on the same page, and, for that matter, pregnancy and childbirth wouldn't carry so many consequences, physically, emotionally, and financially. In an ideal situation both partners would desire the same outcome, but unfortunately that doesn't always happen. When that doesn't happen, the woman's choice has to be the ultimate decision, for reasons I'm sure you can imagine. I'm not sure that I could live somewhere that has made it the law of the land that a man can decide what happens to my body. Because that's what it all comes down to: her body, her decision. If it was his body, it would be his decision.

I can only speak about the law in my own land, and the law is very clear: if you have sired a child, you are legally obligated to contribute to the welfare of that child, whether it was the product of a 10 year marriage, or a 6 month relationship, or a one night stand. Do women who get pregnant while in an insignificant relationship hold their partner accountable for child support? Rarely. But the law remains the same, and it's not about blame, or about what's "fair" to either party; it's about what's best for the child. And what's best for the child is, undoubtedly, the support of both its parents. I can't say I disagree with this law, because its focus is correct: it's about the child, not about its feuding/estranged parents.

I don't disagree with you. As I try to decipher out my position on this issue, I think there is a tremendous lack of salesmanship on the part of the left to clearly articulate their views. When I hear arguments (paraphrased), that prolifers are trying to punish women for being sexual, the argument seems extremely weak. At the point when the fetus can feel pain, I would question a women's right to make that decision even if she is the vessel. The choice would still be hers if made in an appropriate length of time. If medical reasons necessitated abortion, then that would also be an exception, in my mind. There are extremist on the left and the right, but that seems like a compromise that considers both the unborn and women.

I also completely disagree with protestors at abortion clinics or personal attacks on doctors.

It seems to me that the whole conversation needs to move from the "prolife" and "prochoice" language. That language is inflammatory in itself. Can't someone think of a name for those that support the middle ground?

@Katy-2266405: I don't know if I agree with your first point. I would agree that the political left is pretty muddled when it comes to the abortion issue, but so is the political right. Abortion as a political issue is pretty hard to "sell" appropriately without making a gaffe or stepping on toes, so most people in the political arena have a hard time expressing their views on abortion. But the people who are on the front lines providing access to abortion or covering abortion issues-feminists, abortion clinic staff, and pro-choice activists and bloggers-are usually pretty clear as to where they stand on abortion, and can articulate their views very clearly, because they deal with, read and write about reproductive and abortion issues on a daily basis. If you are looking for salesmanship and clarity on abortion issues, these would be the people to turn to.

You mentioned the argument that pro-lifers are trying to punish women for being sexual, and I just want to put that argument into greater context. A fairly common argument against abortion is "you chose to have sex, so you have to deal with the consequences" i.e. pregnancy and childbirth. Because abortion is legal, we know that this is not the case because a woman can decide whether or not she wants to remain pregnant. So what is this argument really about? It's about making abortion illegal so that women who choose to have sex endure the "appropriate consequences".

It's hard to tell when exactly a fetus can feel pain. I would assume that it would be much further along in the pregnancy, but the jury is out on the issue. In Ontario, a woman can get an abortion at any time during her pregnancy, and abortion is funded by the provincial government. What we see is that women get abortions as soon as possible, sooner than in the states because they don't have to scrounge up the money for it. We also see that for the most part, women get late term abortions because it is discovered that their fetus has a very severe abnormality, or she has gotten very sick and can't continue with her pregnancy safely. It all comes back to trusting women; when we trust women, they usually do the "right" or at least the "reasonable" thing.

The abortion debate is very inflammatory, because both sides often subscribe to views that they absolutely can't budge on, and they find the other side's views abhorrent. If you support what you view as the middle ground between the two sides, you will find your own language to articulate your views with.

I know you are making the case for the other side to make your point but it seems this line of thought...

Because abortion is legal, we know that this is not the case because a woman can decide whether or not she wants to remain pregnant.

Seems to imply that you are for women using abortion as birth control. Maybe I'm miss reading it and I apologize if so.

Here's what I see as middle ground:

1. We want to limit the number of abortions, not increase them (I'm not saying limit abortions, i.e. make illegal).

2. We want women not to use it as a form of birth control (seems like a might extreme method and dangerous).

3. We want to be even more sensitive where a woman or girl has been victimized.

4. We want to stop all violence surrounding the issue and tone down all the rhetoric.

5. We want to make safe and more available all options of adoption and all ways of providing for the child once born.

6. We want to find agreeable ways to decrease unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

How is this list? Wording okay? Leave off any areas?

I agree completely with that list. The focus needs to be on how do we eliminate all but the most egregious circumstances pertaining to pregnancy. We're never going to be able to eliminate rape or incest (we can dramatically reduce it though) and we're never going to be able to eliminate people having sex in circumstances where they shouldn't (like when they know they can't afford a child should pregnancy occur). So we have to work within those constrains to dramatically reduce what we can. If we could find a way to work together on this issue we could hypothetically eliminate almost all need for abortion and that would go soooooo much further than just outright illegalizing it. And yeah about the toning down of rhetoric- something needs to be done to ensure people like Scott Roeder don't feel the need to pick up a gun again. I don't know what you would do though; I'd be interested in hearing suggestions for sure. It seems to me he was going to do something this terrible regardless. I don't know though; I don't know him or his circumstances well enough. But I'd love it if no one had to hear about an abortion clinic being bombed again. I'd love it if we never had to hear about any form of domestic terrorism again (for the record).

The underlying current to most of the arguments I've heard regarding abortion rights follows this sequence of logic: if a woman chooses to have sex, and if that choice leads to pregnancy, she should have to carry the pregnancy to term and take care of the child until the child is 18. Such an argument postulates that pregnancy is a punishment (consequence) for sex and puts blame for that action squarely on the shoulders of women (and most notably not men).

The reality is I could use that exact same argument to justify mandatory vasectomies for men or to mandate that the father has to take care of the child (or anything else I'd like to mandate, for the record). 2. If a man chooses to have sex, and if that choice leads to pregnancy, he should have to take care of the woman until the baby is carried to term and then he should have to take care of the child until the child is 18. I could also argue (along the same lines of logic) that 3. because a man can control where he ejaculates (I.E. whether or not he ejaculates into a woman) the control over pregnancy falls squarely on the shoulders of that man. Therefore he is choosing to take the risk of pregnancy when he has sex. He should therefore have to be vasectomized as a form of prevention.
Most conservatives won't allow the conversation to veer towards the male gender and male punishment (consequence) for sex, meaning usually you can't get a conservative to follow argument's 2 and 3 (even though the logical sequence you followed is the exact same). Usually it starts and stops just with the female and because of that, there's a sexist element undercutting the general attitude about abortion rights.

Now I can't say that this applies to everyone who is anti-abortion or I guess pro-limited abortions (trying to avoid the pro-life/pro-choice dynamic). It's quite possible some people are oblivious to the sexist element within their own argument. It's quite possible that because one is so focused on the child, one is oblivious to any other element. I don't know and I can't generalize that all people who want to restrict or outlaw abortions think alike. All I can say is my experience has been the argument goes straight away towards emphasis on the female and almost always no one ever wants to have a conversation about consequence going to the male or about prevention. Because no one wants to talk about male consequence or about prevention, it leads me to suspect that the abortion argument has more to do with equal rights and feminism than it does about the rights of the unborn. However, like I said, I am deducting such a conclusion anecdotally.

@RobDon: I'm certainly not implying that women should use abortion as a form of birth control. Even when abortion is legal and funded by the government, it is a time consuming, uncomfortable medical procedure that I'm sure women would rather avoid, and for these reasons I've always found the "abortion as birth control" point a little... misguided, to say the least. I was just stating the fact that when abortion is legal, carrying a pregnancy to term is not an inevitability for women, and thus not an actual "consequence".

As for your list, I would say that working towards #6 would lead to #1, and that I disagree with #2 for the reasons I stated above. Providing extra care to women and girls who have been victimized is good, less violence and judgement is good, and more actual alternatives to abortion are good. As I stated on the second page of this thread, it is my personal belief that to be pro-life is to acknowledge the unique challenges facing women and children, and to work towards policies and programs that address these challenges. Shelters for pregnant women, affordable childcare, affordable healthcare, and extended maternity leave would be a few examples. In Ontario, the big issue is affordable childcare. You can't even put your child into home day care without it costing you $40 a day.

Thanks Mickey and Girl.

As for

I was just stating...

I can see that now. Thanks for clarifying. And based on this I can see where #2 is redundant and unnecessary. I wonder what would happen if tomorrow those most passionate on both extremes would work to make a list like this one their focus?

@RobDon: If such a thing were to happen, our respective countries would certainly be better off for it. If I ever gain employment in abortion services, this will be one of my goals.

You may disagree, but we have two polarizing terms to describe how people feel about the issue. We don't have a term to characterize those who agree with some points on both sides. There is no one to promote that position, no party in the middle. There are people in the middle in both parties that could work together on solutions. In my opinion, to get them talking a the table, a term should be identified that more closely resembles the middle ground. One that garners the majority of the public's support. It beats fighting about it and having the laws flip flop everytime we get a different party in Congress.

As far as a punishment for sex, I don't think it is a femist issue. In fact, we should do more to discourage the sexual escapades by males. We know now the disease that is spread through unprotected sex with multiple partners. We also know that single parent families are more likely to live in poverty, especially in minority communities, and males do more than there share to contribute to that problem. Why can't we work on pregnancy prevention and preservation of the family at the same time?

The President doesn't even want us to use the term terrorists when speaking about the muslims that waged war on us. An activist is anyone who is passionate and active about changing a political or social cause. You can't own the word for something that applies only to your own cause, can you? You just don't like the actual parallels. People who disagree with you see you in the same way you see these people.

THEY ARE BLOWING UP BUILDINGS AND MURDERING PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!! That's terrorism!!! Activism does not include advocating violence!!!! And yes, Obama does use the word terrorism he uses it all the time. He just doesn't say every Muslim is a terrorist, which is what you want him to say. Remember not even George Bush called every Muslim a terrorist.

Same here Puzzled. Religion is the root of all evil!

Yes, more left wing conspiracy to silence those who have opinions unlike their own. No problems ever get solved when we can express our honest emotions and fears, because then they can't be addressed. Also, I hear you about our planet, lets see, its only been her about, what, 15 billion years so we need to be careful with all the hairspray.

The environment thing is such a joke. You guys just jump on every bandwagon because you obviously don't have a real life. I think some years ago we went to plastic bags in the grocery stores because we had to save some trees, now of course the plastic bags are bad for us.....geez

Katy, what color is the sky in your world?

After all the environmental damage we humans have done, it is amazingly still BLUE! Go figure...

Really?

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/smog.aspx

See, here's the thing:

1. Nobody has the right to libel, threaten, harass or advocate violence against others (and this goes double when it's over ideological differences). That legal restriction is not "silencing" anyone, because there are still plenty of ways to express "emotions and fears" without doing these things; it is more valid and more important to protect the life and health of the targets. It isn't rocket science. See if you can understand this basic concept. Let's go back and review: your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of the other guy's nose.

2. The planet isn't 15 billion years old, it's ~4.5 billion years old -- but hey, a minor error of 10 billion years, what's that between friends, right?

3. The idea that humans couldn't possibly do permanent environmental damage flies in the face of observable reality...or perhaps you could point to where the passenger pigeons are these days, eh?

4. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/10-the-worlds-largest-dump

It seems to me like you are one of those people who doesn't believe in anything you can't understand, but makes no effort to understand anything beyond her own very narrow little life.

I say outlaw all religion cause it just seems to make the crazy feel justified in scaring the crap out of the rest of us.

Same here Puzzled. Religion is the root of all evil!

Wow...and double wow! And everyone thought O'Donnell didn't understand the first amendment. Hey, at least your honest.

Lynne-

It seems to me like you are one of those people who doesn't believe in anything you can't understand, but makes no effort to understand anything beyond her own very narrow little life.

Yes, I need an elitist liberal to edumacate me. What's a few billion years anyway.....guess you don't understand sarcasim and exgageration, either. What makes you think YOU have all the answers? Were you one of those on the plastic bag bandwagon a few years back?? No one is suggesting that we trash the world, Lynne, but get off our backs. The earth has cycles and you can't control them all. When this one gets trashed we will beam ourselves over to another planet in another solar system. Have some vision!

See what I mean Rob? For the record Rob I hope you stick around- I am finding your sanity on the right very, very appreciable the more I hear crackpots. I wish more of you would come out *offers cookies as an incentive*

Many non-activists support capital punishment, most guns that are used in crimes are not obtained legally.

Why is it that the liberals care more about murders than they do about victims. Why do we have such comfortable jails that cost us a fortune. Why do we pay to extend a death row inmates life with expensive government funded medical procedure. Oh yeah, we can get early voting for our prisoners on time, but our soldiers overseas get them REAL late (and only after some complaining) and get one day to postmark them.

I don't agree with what these people are doing with the abortion clinics, but you can't lump that together with captial punishment or the right to bear arms. You can, but it is a weak argument.

I am so sick of you trolls.

1. Just because someone has been convicted of a crime does not mean that they actually committed the crime. I personally am pro-death penalty, but the liberal argument is solid. Liberals don't want someone executed who has been tried and convicted of murder because there is a good chance that person is innocent and the longer he or she is in jail the longer he or she has to appeal the case and the more likely it is that actual justice will be served. THe notion that revenge is somehow a good substitute for justice is ludicrous. For someone who advocates so much about Christianity you sure as hell hate Christ and his teachings. Not everyone has the "we'll kill 'em here and let God sort 'em out mentality," Katy. For someone who chastisizes others for not being open minded, you're pretty damn close minded.

2. Liberals advocate that soldiers don't get to vote on time? What the hell have you been inhaling Katy?!?!?!?!?!?! Liberals piss and moan about that problem just as much as anyone else.

3. Life is life Katy. You can't separate abortion out and say that because it has to do with someone who wasn't convicted of a crime that somehow makes his/her life more valuable. Prey-tell Katy, aren't our soldiers out there fighting to protect the rights of criminals too? And if you believe in the right to life then you believe that it is something unalienable that cannot be taken away by law. Hence why it is a right. Pretty hypocritical of you, yet again.

You are the one that said you actually agree with my position, and you are pro death penalty. Why don't you answer your own question and quit arguing for arguments sake.

And, I don't even know what a troll is....

Because the death penalty puts victims in the worse case possible, being that a victim of the system is then executed and gives revenge a place as justice when it is in fact not. I did answer the question, and you're also incorrectly assuming my position as pro-death penalty is a liberal position. I can understand the argument against the death penalty by liberals. Your assumption is that my belief in the death penalty has anything to do with the liberal position and it does not. Try to keep up shall we Katy?

Just because someone has been convicted of a crime does not mean that they actually committed the crime. I personally am pro-death penalty, but the liberal argument is solid.

I have no idea what you are talking about. You said you were pro death penality, right? So if you agree with it, tell me why you do! Why are you arguing the liberal point of view if it is not yours?

Then the country needs to see you and other pro-life christians come out screaming against this. I can see this might be the only way would-be terrorists might listen. But why do we only see you post on message boards? How about a real stand against terrorism here?

Reverend I dont have a tv or radio show but everytime I can I mention my discomfort with those who kill abortion doctors. I clearly state that that is not of Christ. Now perhaps your question is why arent more Catholic publications against these outrages? I fear you have a good point with the noble exception of National Catholic reporter and National Catholic Worker I fear most Catholic publications are either lap dogs for the hierarchy or far right publications like Eternal Word Television Network. They dont want any thing but how evil these docs are.

Here is an example of a response to the murder of Doctor Tiller from National Catholic reporter June 5,2009

Abortionists are not evil people," said Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kan. "What is the point of working for legal reform for our public policy on abortion, if you accept the premise that it is acceptable to disregard the law and kill another human being?"

I wish it were more profound it is somewhat tepid but at least it was mentioned

Ugh.

Yeah, no need...there would just be more women dead from the toxic side effects of abortificant herbs. I had a friend who died from trying to use pennyroyal in college...liver failure from that "natural, earth-provided" herb. That horrible evil "allopathic" medicine you seem to loathe is nothing more than the effective bits of "natural" medicine isolated, purified, and tested for safety and efficacy, and ideally administered in safe and controlled doses.

What a stupid argument.

WHAT about RU 486 that the Bush administration and his FDA kept out of the US on religious grounds? RU 486 was being used in France and was green lighted to come to the US but our former president got pressure from right wing Christian groups against abortion. The drug was effective and should be reviewed again by the FDA and pushed to market. But this wedge issue is so important in right wing politics I think that will never happen. I graduated from college with a major in pharmacology and have read a lot about this drug. If approved it would be a private thing between a woman and her doctor and she would have no need to be harassed and clinic staff's lives threatened.

Oh please.

hmm...silly

Lets say there is a fire in a building and there a three liberals in one room and 2 republicans in another.....

So your point here that you'd advocate killing the liberals for the Republicans? And you're supposed to be pro-life??? I hope all other conservatives out there see how crazy Katy is and why liberals get so defensive over this issue- it's because of people like her that people like you can't have a rational discussion about such important topics.

I didn't advocate killing anyone, just making a point of how silly it all was. You have no sense of humor!

yeh, yeh, I'M the one that's crazy....

Joking about murder is fun. I joke about murder all the time. I have no moral conscience at all. *rolls eyes*

Well, I think you team brought it up, duh!

The churches are aiding and abetting these nuts by feeding them the wrong message.

Oh, so you want to be arbiter of the truth. That's a lot of responsibility for one person. And just what is your idea that the majority of these churches are getting wrong.

The truth is, our nation's laws trump Biblical laws. No arbiter needed whatsoever.

1. Unless a church leader is promoting spiritual growth, peace, love, and compassion, they are getting it wrong.

2. Religious dogma is not truth.

3. Like Noodlehead said!

And who determines what is promoting growth, peace, love, and compassion? If my child starts doing drugs do I intervene and tell him it's wrong? If my best friend confides he's having an affair, should I just consider it a growing opportunity for him?

The point is that anything that goes against your beliefs you see as dogma, hatred, intolerance, and/or wrong. Take the two main oft mentioned controversial topics: If someone else beliefs that abortion beyond a certain stage kills a living child, you say they are wanting to control someone else's body. If a pastor preaches that sexual relations should be between a married man and woman, you say they are being hateful.

If it were up to you, no one would be allowed to have these beliefs. You would outlaw them. You would make it illegal to even speak them. Or am I wrong?

Keep your morals to yourself and don't envolve me. Don't make your personal problems and opinions an issue for everyone else. We thankfully have separation of church and state. Let's keep it that way.

As for me personally, don't even try to tell me what to do according to your standards. I can reason it out for myself without religious dogma. Believe what you like but butt out of my business.

Also, it seems like you would be more upset about lunatics using Christ's name to kill rather than dodging the issue with side arguments.

Robdon - the point is - religions of all kinds are trying to control me, my thoughts, my body. I want religions to leave me alone - from Catholics to Baptists to Islamists, and every crazy sect and cult in between. If this is to be a country for ALL of the people, we need to give respect to ALL of the people. No religion (or religions) should be able to foist beliefs on the entire populace. I think this is the point that Rachel is trying to get across.

I don't think abortion should ever be done lightly, but I think it is a choice issue. If someone is raped, or in ill health, then they should have that choice. There are other reasons, as well.

Newsblog, you aren't keeping your beliefs or moral judgments to yourself. You said that the churches are wrong and should be held accountable.

I am upset about anyone's murder. Jim Pouilon, a pro-life supporter, was murdered while protesting abortions last year in Michigan. I'm upset about that as well. And anyone using Christianity to justify killing is even more troubling!

Can anyone oppose abortion on moral grounds outside the bounds of religion?

Can anyone oppose abortion on moral grounds outside the bounds of religion?

Oppose away just don't impose your moral opinions on the rest of us. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

Churches have set the stage for every kind of lunatic to act out by irresponsibily saying what they think is God's word. They have allowed hatred to blossom in the hearts of many by this kind of goofy Jesus talk. Give them an opening and you know what happens- think back to Tomas deTorqumada!

Furthermore, I don't ever remember Jesus saying anything about abortion so it's one falacy right after another with the ever so sure they are right church group.

Fortunately you don't get to tell others how to live out their morals. If I feel the unborn child needs to have his/her rights protected I can use my voice and vote to say so.

This parallels your belief. You state

Oppose away just don't impose your moral opinions on the rest of us. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

I say, don't tell me how to voice or vote my moral beliefs. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't get pregnant. (This excludes underage, incest, or rape because in these cases the mother was victimized.)

I would comment on your view of churches but it seems your mind is made up. Despite the fact that I specifically tried to take it out of the discussion because I could tell you have strong views, you seem to want it to be a part of the conversation.

I will remind you, though, that Jesus consistently stood up for those mistreated and who had no voice.

You have an absolute right to hold your own opinions, to vote according to them, and to express them to the point that they do not victimise other people.

But I'm sure you've heard the thing about "free speech doesn't mean you have the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, when there is no fire"? And, "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose"?

Anti-abortion groups do not have the right to incite hatred and violence against those they disagree with. They do not have the right to harass and intimidate. (They also do not have the right to lie to the public about what is and isn't medically true, which I frequently see in attempts to support their position. Lying is wrong, and lying to influence people to do something they otherwise wouldn't agree has legal consequences in some circumstances, as it should be.) We see religious people trying to get women who seek abortions and doctors who provide them branded as "evil" and "criminals", and certainly things like the above are explicitly designed to harass and intimidate, and they implicitly encourage the even less-rational to go out and do a little "righteous" violence. So where are the people who are picketing churches and screaming abuse in the faces of the people who go in to worship on Sunday morning? Where are the people posting up the names, addresses and details of the people who run these anti-abortion groups as "wanted criminals" and overtly telling the public that they ought to be harassed "for justice"? These don't exist -- therefore the situation is not an equal one, you are trying to set up a false equality, and it is not the issue.

You have the right to think that abortion is wrong, and to try to influence laws within a framework which respects the rights of those who disagree with you. However, in this setting, you are the one attempting to forbid people control over their own bodies, whereas the people opposing you are merely trying to forbid you the "right" to exercise control over other people's bodies, not the right to exercise control over your own. You're essentially the one swinging your fist, we're trying to protect our noses, so to speak.

Lynne, I agree with everything you said regarding violence, hateful speech, even name calling (I participated in a long post thread recently trying to argue that not only is name calling wrong it is ineffective and is more likely to only cause opposition to your view instead of sympathy or consideration).

Where those arguing for more abortion freedom clash with those working to restrict abortion is on the last point. One sees it totally as their right to exercise control over their own body and the other views it as standing up for the rights of the unborn child. There's no way to completely recognize both rights.

And let me state again, the tactics above and those like them seeking to encourage or carry out violence is WRONG.

But anything the "right" does to restrict abortion, the left yells its a woman's body to do with what she wants (which I understand that argument). I don't want to "swing" fists, I want to lessen the number of abortions.

Rape, incests, and underage pregnancy is a very small percentage of the total number of abortions. Even if you throw in failed birth control you cut that in less than half. Almost a quarter of all pregnancies end in abortion, surely we could all agree that is too many. It endangers the life of the woman, too!

So instead of arguing, how do we stop the violence and reduce the number of abortions (safely), to me that is the real question...and both sides have roles to play.

I don't have a problem with trying to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the need for abortion. I agree that needing an abortion is not a desirable outcome (although I would point out that a medical abortion in the first trimester is actually considerably lower risk to maternal health than carrying a pregnancy to term, as long as it is not an illegal back-alley abortion).

What I have a problem with is that many of the religiously motivated groups don't want to make abortions less likely. They want to forbid their availability. And these same groups are very often against sex ed and telling kids the truth about things like how well condoms actually work, too, which has the real world consequence of making both teen pregnancies and teen STDs more likely, not less!

I'd also like to point you towards the Guttmacher Institute factsheet on induced abortions in America, just to be pedantically accurate about who seeks them and why:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

(18% of women getting abortions are teenagers. 54% of women getting an abortion reported that they were doing so because their birth control failed.)

I do not have a problem with regarding a developing fetus as a life with rights to be protected at the point that it is identifiably a viable human life -- this, to me, is the point at which it has a sufficiently developed nervous system for any form of perception or awareness at all (that is generally around 22 weeks, although people will argue for 1-2 weeks either way and there is definitely variation of just exactly how developed each baby is at "22 weeks gestation"). At the other end of life, death is defined as the point of brain death -- when there is no discernable brain activity, then the person is not alive any more, even though there will be millions of cells in the person's body which are still "alive", especially if the body is kept on life support to enable later organ donation. I do not actually understand why a fetus which does not have discernable brain activity is considered to be a "life", when this is not.

This being said, however, I still believe the rights of the mother need to be given more weight, because the mother must make medical decisions based on rational analysis of physical and yes, realistically, economic outcomes, where a baby simply can't; I see it as similar to the rights of medical attorney granted to relatives of people in comas/on life support, only a bit more so, since the mother has her own physical health invested in the decision.

Also, with late abortions such as Tiller offered, these were certainly not done lightly; they were done only under direst necessity, and to deprive women of their availability results in avoidable harm to pretty much everyone involved, not any better an outcome.

Further: I have noted on several occasions that the groups who want to make abortion unavailable don't include exceptions for rape or to save the life of the mother (including, as I've noted elsewhere in this discussion, the pro-life groups sponsoring State Amendment 62 in Colorado -- I wrote to them asking, and they confirmed that would see abortions even in the case of saving the mother's life prosecuted as murder). The message to me is that the cells-with-no-nervous-system is valued more highly than my life is, me, a thinking, feeling, autonomous and conscious person. It is really, really difficult not to take offense at that.

When the anti-abortion stance is most commonly aligned with ensuring that people have access to and education about safe and effective contraception, when it does not attempt to restrict the rights of autonomous, living people to the real detriment of their lives, and when it takes into account unfortunate medical reality, then I am perfectly willing to sit down and talk about how it ought to be handled.

The problem is, that's not really the situation we're talking about, is it.

Maybe I can explain the liberal position a little better to you Rob. It is not that liberals like abortion, it is that liberals believe this is a rights issue. A right is something that cannot be taken away by law. We do not believe that someone else has the authority to take away a woman's medical choices. Now, does that mean we like that abortions happen? No. We just don't want to pass laws that restrict abortions because those laws are restricting a right and that's what upsets us. You're more level headed than most conservatives so when I say this please understand I am excluding you and others of your mentality; conservatives do not want to talk about prevention. I have tried and tried and tried to get conservatives to talk about prevention and they just won't. It's always either we outlaw abortion or we don't, and that ends up being what the conversation is narrowed down to. I am not going to take away someone's rights and as long as someone else is going to try to take away someone's rights, I am going to be grounded on my side and they on theirs. I would love it if we could get to a point where we made abortion an obsolete practice. There is a way that we can nearly eliminate abortion as a practice without taking away the right to abort. Remember that even if abortion is outlawed it will still happen. Women will still die. The argument for abortion was that we were legally sanctioning (by having the practice be illegal) the murdering of both women and fetuses. By legalizing abortion we have roughly halved the amount of deaths that were occuring before Roe v Wade.

This is about protecting life in all forms and the way you do that is by expanding ABC education, making condoms and birth control accessible (I also think that medically the restriction on vasectomies should be lowered to the age of 18 regardless of marital or parental status so that men can take a more pro-active stance in their reproductive rights; also believe this about IUCs for women), and by expanding Planned Parenthood centers. Remember that PP doesn't just help with abortion. PP helps provide housing or allocation services for women who want to carry a pregnancy to term but don't have a place to live or adequate sustenance to do so, PP helps educate women on both options (to keep or not to keep), and provides reproductive services for women for free. The adoption and foster care system we have in America is a mess. Giving a child up for adoption or for foster care is in many, many cases worse than if the child had never been born in the first place. I know, I grew up in that system. The chances of rape, physical abuse, mental abuse, and other forms of sexual abuse are insane. We're talking about 1 out of 4 girls and 1 out of 6 boys. It's easy as someone who has never gone through that system to say "well it's better to be alive" but trust me as someone who had to go through it, it's not. Being spared pain as opposed to suffering through it for 18 agonizing years is not a comparable choice. I don't even think we should be talking about the possibility of a mother keeping a baby to term if she is going to put it up for adoption until we fix adoption and foster care. The odds are against the child and I do not believe in gambling with a child's life. I just don't. This again is something I've tried to talk to conservatives about and the only answer I have ever gotten is along the lines of "well it's a human life so don't be so belittling, even if she's raped and beaten until she's in her teens she can still grow out of it." Obviously that argument came from a man. We also shouldn't be talking about abortion until we get a system that actually works for getting accurate and sustained convictions on sex offenders. The system they have in Florida, for example, is one of the best in the country for dealing with rapists and child rapists and child molesters. We need a system nationally that works like that so that we're not turning rapists and other sex offenders out on the streets weeks after they've abused someone.

If we stopped fighting about the right to abort and started focusing on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies we could nearly eliminate this problem from the get go. For the record, I appreciate your ability and willingness to talk about it. Like I said my experience with conservatives has been getting them to talk about prevention is like trying to get a cow to walk down stairs- it's just damn near impossible.

Yeah...^^^what Mickey Mouse just said.^^^

For the record, I appreciate your ability and willingness to talk about it. Like I said my experience with conservatives has been getting them to talk about prevention is like trying to get a cow to walk down stairs- it's just damn near impossible.

Thank you, and I appreciate the same from you and Lynne (and others). I think part of the problem is both sides dig their heels in so fast and so far that a discussion doesn't result, conflict does.

Even in civil discussions there would rise the need for clarifications of facts like the quote from Lynne of 54% for failed birth control when the study says they used some type of birth control that month not necessarily when the pregnancy occurred.

These discussion have the potential to side track discussions as well because we go off chasing that rabbit (and digging our heels in again) instead of saying how do we better educate people on birth control like you suggest. For instance, I can not believe that most people would be against allowing private or public agencies to present material to the schools for approval and distribution to the parents. I realize many may say this is less than perfect but if it is common ground, it is a start to a better solution.

While one side says:

We do not believe that someone else has the authority to take away a woman's medical choices.

The other side says, "We do not believe that someone else has the authority to take away the medical health of an unborn child." Both are legitimate (non-religious, because that seems to be a big sticking point) views.

Now if we can figure out how to get government officials or other leaders to lead in the civil discussion and to find the common ground, we might be able to achieve better health and choice for all women and better homes and opportunities for all unborn children. I know of no one who would be against that as an outcome.

I can agree with that. Politicans have to stop stoking such emotional subjects for the sake of elections. That's what drives these terrorist organizations to act. Political stoking is what takes a Scott Roeder from a church and turns him into a murderer. The same goes for ministers and priests and all other religious or I suppose ethical teachers (since you're right this does affect more than just religious individuals) who constantly stoke emotions without balancing it. You cannot go up in front of a crowd and tell them "to be a smurf is to sin; all sinners must be killed!" and expect that someone in that crowd won't act on your statements. You have to balance that statement out and do so consistently. Too many leaders try to say "to be a smurf is to sin; all sinners must be killed!" over and over again, but only say "but I'm not advocating that you do this, God will do it on his own and you don't have to" once or twice. People need to know that it doesn't work that way- if you talk about something so powerful as death you have to balance it with responsibility and alas soo many of our leaders do nothing to curtail violence (and for the record that applies to both lefties and righties). You have to use intelligent judgement and alas we really don't have that with our leadership. I would love it if people could just sit down and discuss things like abortion rights, gun rights, marriage rights, etc without it turning into a cage match. I think, though, that you and I as citizens have a responsibility in this dance too (not that you were implying that we don't). The more we communicate across the divide the better we are all off.

The more we communicate across the divide the better we are all off.

Agreed. And that is/will be difficult but not impossible.

PS. You had me sympathizing with the Smurfs...poor little guys!

For the record, I am totally pro-smurf ;-)

Oddly enough, in millions of years of evolution the earth never provided any solution to smallpox. It took that evil allopathic medicine to do that.

Honestly, the whole "nature is a friendly place, my child" argument also ignores the fact that the "natural" way of life included a maternal mortality rate of 2-3 dead women out of every 100 births, and an infant mortality rate of more than 2 out of every 5. It also frequently meant that all those who survived were robust and healthy, because everyone who wasn't both extremely robust and lucky was dead. Average lifespan amongst the most "natural living" people on earth, the hunter-gatherers, is around 45.

I'll pass, thanks. I likes me my modern medicines. I survived an ectopic pregnancy because of them -- I'd like to see what herbal remedy you think would deal with that.

Citations, please.

Lynn, that average is so low b/c of high infant mortalities. It's better to look at the age distribution...once people made it past a certain point, they were likely to live to be considerably older than 45. Not that it negates your points about modern medicine and infant/mother mortality.

Although I agree that modern Western medicine has it's benefits, it has also been responsible for taking women's reproductive health out of their hands and placing it into the hands of, in large part, a masculinzied sphere.

Our science and medicine is not necessarily "neutral" or free from stereotypes about gender.

Emily Martin has a great book called "The Woman in the Body" where she examines some of these issues from an anthropological and sociological view. The classic Our Bodies Ourselves also looks at how Western medicine has in some ways pathologized the reproductive cycle.

None of this negates the fact that access to safe, legal abortions is an absolute right. But we could also expand our understanding of what "safe" and legal means.

Seconding the rec for Martin's book.

@MechTrek:

Gurven, Michael; Kaplan, Hillard "Longevity among hunter-gatherers: a cross-cultural examination." Population and Development Review June 01, 2007

Hill, Kim; Hurtado, A.M.; Walker, R.S. "High adult mortality among Hiwi hunter-gatherers: Implications for human evolution" Journal of Human Evolution
Volume 52, Issue 4, April 2007, pp. 443-454

It's completely understandable to assume that the high infant mortality skews the average lifespan statistics badly, but the first paper charts lifespan throughout life (and yes, there is a large skewed mortality before age 5, but a continuing lower but real level of risk throughout adolescence & adulthood which is roughly equal in each decade up to age 45, but then rises very steeply after that). And the second paper makes explicit, they are looking at "adult" lifespan after the risk of high infant and childhood mortality is passed: "life expectancy at adulthood (age 15) is only an additional 31 years."

@jender13 -- I do agree that there has often been too much medicalization of women's biology, which ironically travels alongside sometimes not paying enough attention to things like gender differences in drug metabolism. And it is definitely important to revise the medical approach to pay more attention to what is real than to what is culturally assumed. Nevertheless, the presence of genuine problems doesn't make the "nature has all the answers, allopathic medicine is completely unnecesary" position any more valid; that is still pretty delusional.

@Lynne - I totally agree with you! I don't believe that nature has all the answers, nor do I believe that Western medicine has all the answers. I think that modern medicine as we practice it now has led to great advances in many areas. I also think that "alternative" practices can offer us advances as well, when they are well researched and admistered by people who truly know how to use them.

Although I did not agree totally with what Dolores commented up above (sweeping generalizations with out some mention of sources to back them up are never my favorite) - I was also surprised at how many folks seemed so quick to totally discredit what she said.

@jender -- I just went back and reread Dolores's statement at the top of this little thread, and I am hard pressed to find any part of it that is actually accurate. "If women knew the true value of herbs, this political tug a war would not even exist." -- historically this is unlikely to be true; it would just be a political and religious fight of a different flavor, not to mention the fact that herbs do not take the place of safe modern abortion techniques. "the earth has provided us with everything we need" -- well, not really; I mean, it would be nice if the earth had provided us with a sure-fire prophylactic against malaria as well, which kills millions every year, and so far no dice. Ginger tea as a sure-fire prevention against pregnancy -- I think this is more wishful thinking than anything else, or where's the evidence? "May Humanities Femine Balance return to the planet" -- do we have anything other than creative interpretations of a few very scanty aspects of paleontological remains and a lot of mythologizing to support the idea that humanity (much less the planet" had a "feminine balance"? About the only part I can't possibly take any issue with is the wish for people to have peace and not suffer harm.

Not to mention the fact that Dolores seems to post exactly the same thing over and over again, with very little variation and no effort to engage with any criticisms. She may be a sweet, friendly, and well-meaning troll, but that is "internet troll" behavior, sadly.

The lack of defensible statements, or good-faith engagement with other posters, that might be why people just discredit what she says. Just a thought.

You're good Lynne :) I was, perhaps, giving Dolores too much credit/benefit of the doubt.

I think I was responding to what I filtered out as the spirit of her first post - you know, like if i was going to post something about the medicalization of reproductive health, and I sort of "heard" what I would have said instead of what she was really saying...if that makes any sense.

I don't agree 100% with her hyperbolic assertions that all we need is Mother Nature and you're right, she provides nothing anywhere near factual to back up her assertions. And she hasn't offered any clarification to her post.

I do think that some of the knowledge held by midwives and herbalists and homeopathic/holistic practioners could help to put the choice to terminate a pregnancy back into the hands of women in a way that seems..."quieter" maybe, than having to go to a clinic mobbed by protestors.

Maybe it's the part of me that wants to be prepared in case Margaret Atwood's vision in The Handmaid's Tale ever comes to pass :)

Thanks for helping me firm up my thoughts!