Hey, y'all, newbie/lurker here.
Finally have something I want to say, which I haven't heard anyone say yet, so here goes...
I speak from a conflicted position: I'm a religious conservative, social liberal mother of three, biology professor (hence the name; also, hence the boring name--too busy writing/grading tests for poor folks like Zeke to think of better name) that is pro-life, also pro-choice.
I can speak to some of the ideas tossed out on this forum. I am one of those women who know what it's like to be find themselves pregnant and really, really, not want to have a child (but love her so much now anyway). It gets my goat (dating myself here!) to hear people talk about a woman's right to choose, since it's *her* body. How can scientists (or any reasonably informed person) not acknowledge (as did one earlier poster:Thank you!) that the genetic code of the life form from conception onwards is unique (unless later twinned) and thus what we are talking about is not her body, it's another person's (nascent) body completely dependent on hers? Argue if you like about the right of a woman to terminate that life. Although I do not like to see abortions occur, I actually think that she may have the right to have one, but I don't propose that it's her body when it's a genetically different individual. I wish pro-abortion folks would just admit that it is, at some point during pregnancy, a human life that they think a woman should be able to terminate. Then I could have more respect for their arguments.
(And don't call this "flip-flopping". It's called thinking and taking a careful, reasoned approach to a complicated topic. As opposed, to, say, adopting a dogmatic stance based on *lack* of thinking and remaining inflexible in light of development of evidence to the contrary of one's opinion...)
Although I intellectually can sympathize with our appointed president's stance on abortion, there is unfortunately ample evidence that his programs to have sex ed & abstinence programs are NOT working. Actually, there have been more abortions since he took office. I wish there weren't. I wish that people would listen & take responsibility for their actions. But don't take my word for it; see this article by a *pro-lifer*:
http://www.courier-journal.com/cjext...1011-5709.html.
(Yes, although I made my web page, I can't be bothered to figure out how to link this. Apologies, but that ain't gonna get me tenure. sigh.)
Bottom line of the article: Bush has screwed up the economy, etc. so much, that the culture we are living in makes it harder for women to feel like they can support another child. So his administration has indirectly, at least, caused more abortions to happen by their actions.
A point I don't think I've seen someone make here: one cannot separate lofty moral values (of which I am very dubious about Dubya's, based on his many other actions) from the pragmatics of a country's economic and cultural landscape.
That's (just one reason) why I don't vote for Bush although I have pro-life sympathies.
Hey, Enterprise is on!
Rant off
Bye[/url]