You all know how I would vote. So lets see how many like me are out there.

I don't agree that I am being "nasty" to anyone. I like to engage in vigorous debate. Sometimes I become, shall we say, enthusiastic. But I don't agree that I am being nasty at all. And I can take it every bit as well as I can dish it out. I don't become personally offended when people disagree with me, even if they call me names.

And as for the substance of what you said, I have tremendous compassion and understanding for the difficulty and challenge in reaching a decision about this highly complex and personal issue. I would never attack anyone for their beliefs. The issue I have, as I have stated again and again, is that the so-called "pro-life" crowd believe they have a right to legislate and use the police power of the state to force me and my family to live by their moral code. That's the part that is intolerable to me. And as long as those people continue to assert that they have the right to force me to live by their values, I consider them to fair game for the strongest possible attacks.

Yes, it is difficult to make these complex and highly personal decisions. That is exactly why there must be a right to choose, and the decision must lie with the individual, not the state.

I voted that I am pro-life.....I did not say I that I have the right to legislate and use police power of the state to force you and your family to live by my moral code........I just simply answered that I am pro life.Pretty simple. I do not think that I can or will change your mind or your actions, I can only control my own!

I value life, I do not want anyone to die, baby or mother. I never said I want to interfere with anyone else's rights.....I just believe in life. I never said I want the mother to die for the sake of saving the baby but I know that if I were pregnant....I would die to save the life of my baby so I guess that makes me a bad person. Call me whatever you want but it will not change how I feel!

Interesting article, Mark, but not representative of the movement. I think it's a bit similar to the information I posted about radical feminists advocating women who have never had an abortion get one so they can experience it. The mention of such a point of view caused you to create quite a ruckus, if I recall correctly, because you felt it was inappropriate of me to bring fringe elements like that into the argument. Discussions of it went on, and on, and on, and on, and on, as you beat me over the head saying the point of view didn't exist, and when I demonstrated that it did, you switched your tactic to beat me over the head saying I should never bring up a thing. I have no intentions of doing the same to you. I have never heard such a position and I don't believe it is representative of pro-lifers as a whole.

Here's another web site with the same view quoting a Pope and several doctors including Bernard Nathanson. Wasn't he the 75,000 abortion guy? I guess those Popes and physicians are wild and crazy fringe elements.

American Life League - your pro-life information source: Declaration: Protecting the Life of the Mother

Here is a quote from that page:

There is never a reason in law or in practice to advocate a "life of the mother" exception for abortion. We base this statement on testimony of many pro-life physicians over the years, including John F. Hillabrand, M.D., Herbert Ratner, M.D., and Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D.

Further, we adhere to the following teaching of Pope Pius XII:

Every human being, even the infant in the mother's womb, has the right to life immediately from God, not from the parent or any human society or authority. Therefore, there is no man, no human authority, no science, no medical, eugenic, social, economic or moral "indication" that can show or give valid juridical title for direct deliberate disposition concerning an innocent human life-which is to say, a disposition that aims at its destruction either as an end in itself or as the means of attaining another end that is perhaps in no way illicit itself. Thus, for example, to save the life of the mother is a most noble end, but the direct killing of the child as a means to this end is not licit.

Allocution to Italian midwives

Pope Pius XII

October 29, 1951

I voted that I am pro-life.....I did not say I that I have the right to legislate and use police power of the state to force you and your family to live by my moral code........I just simply answered that I am pro life.Pretty simple. I do not think that I can or will change your mind or your actions, I can only control my own!

I value life, I do not want anyone to die, baby or mother. I never said I want to interfere with anyone else's rights.....I just believe in life. I never said I want the mother to die for the sake of saving the baby but I know that if I were pregnant....I would die to save the life of my baby so I guess that makes me a bad person. Call me whatever you want but it will not change how I feel!

I appreciate your comments Metalband. My views are actually quite close to yours. The last thing I am is an abortion advocate. I can't imagine a situation where I would ever want or encourage an abortion for my own child.

My issue is with those who seek to legislate their version of morality. In my experience, almost all pro-life individuals would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, for example. Their goal is to make abortion illegal. That's the issue that motivates me. This complex, highly personal issue must be left to individual choice.

But like you, I am strongly opposed to abortion on a personal level in most situations I can imagine.

Thank you, Metal Band and G Lady. That accounts for 3 out of 12 (since we know how 396 voted). We can now say that only 10 people are true "pro-lifers" (by Mark's standard). I'm betting that we will hear from many of the others and they will post similar thoughts.

My only argument was with Mark's unnecessarily mean (I thought) choice of words....that the people who voted pro-life would "gladly let the mother die". I know a lot of pro-life people (no surprise, since I am a cradle Catholic) and they are not people who would "gladly" witness anyone's death.

If you are in favor of the death penalty, does it follow that you are thrilled to hear of a convict's execution? Of course not.

I'm not sure I should get to vote on this issue anyway, since I have never been personally impacted by a disasterous pregnancy. I have been unhappy to find myself pregnant (when I already had three sons, aged 5,2, and 3 months), but not so unhappy that I would have considered aborting my daughter.

I'm not sure I think men should vote, either. After all, you are never going to walk a mile in those shoes, no matter which side you're on.

Thank you, Metal Band and G Lady. That accounts for 3 out of 12 (since we know how 396 voted). We can now say that only 10 people are true "pro-lifers" (by Mark's standard). I'm betting that we will hear from many of the others and they will post similar thoughts.

My only argument was with Mark's unnecessarily mean (I thought) choice of words....that the people who voted pro-life would "gladly let the mother die". I know a lot of pro-life people (no surprise, since I am a cradle Catholic) and they are not people who would "gladly" witness anyone's death.

If you are in favor of the death penalty, does it follow that you are thrilled to hear of a convict's execution? Of course not.

I'm not sure I should get to vote on this issue anyway, since I have never been personally impacted by a disasterous pregnancy. I have been unhappy to find myself pregnant (when I already had three sons, aged 5,2, and 3 months), but not so unhappy that I would have considered aborting my daughter.

I'm not sure I think men should vote, either. After all, you are never going to walk a mile in those shoes, no matter which side you're on.

I think it is "unnecessarily mean" to work toward forcing other people to live by someone else's moral code. As soon as the pro-life people take that off the table, I'll be much nicer, I'm sure.

I have no definition of what I believe to be a "true" "pro-life" advocate. All I can say is, it sure looks pretty mainstream to me that pro-lifers do NOT make ANY exception for the life of the mother, notwithstanding gadget's protestations to the contrary. I think that is something that is important to look at, and says a lot about just how intrusive into the private lives of others the pro-life people are willing to be.

And as for men having no right to vote (or speak at all, I'm sure you would recommend), this is something that I am not suprised to hear from you. But men have wives, mothers and daughters, you see, so I think we have every right to speak and vote on this issue.

Let's be honest here. This whole argument is a red herring as well.

Dr. C. Everett Koop, U.S. Surgeon General in the 1980s, wrote in his book The Right to Live, the Right to Die,

"The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent."

Let's be honest here. This whole argument is a red herring as well.

Dr. C. Everett Koop, U.S. Surgeon General in the 1980s, wrote in his book The Right to Live, the Right to Die,

"The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent."

That is a separate issue which has been repeatedly acknowledged in this thread. The issue is not the practical reality of saving the mother through abortion. The issue is, for me, how could anyone, faced with the choice in this poll, actually vote that there should be no option for abortion even if the life of the mother was at stake. I think that the way people voted on this question is a window into the pro-life mindset that is very revealing. And I think even you will have to agree, after seeing the links sent earlier, that this is not by any means a "fringe" position that is out of the mainstream of the pro life movement.

I expect that you and many others will disagree with me, and that's fine. But one thing is for sure, the reason for raising this issue is not because anyone thinks that abortions, in fact, frequently save the life of the mother.

I think that the way people voted on this question is a window into the pro-life mindset that is very revealing.

This is a flawed poll. It was not well worded, and you know it. To extrapolate from a flawed poll that pro-lifers really don't care about mothers is not only equally flawed, it's ridiculous.

I am a libertarian. I believe people should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies whenever they want to. Where I draw the line is when another person's body is involved, which is why I'm pro-life. I have no interest in controlling people, invading people's homes or lives, or anything else. I simply believe that society needs to protect the most innocent and helpless of victims.

This is a flawed poll. It was not well worded, and you know it. To extrapolate from a flawed poll that pro-lifers really don't care about mothers is not only equally flawed, it's ridiculous.

I am a libertarian. I believe people should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies whenever they want to. Where I draw the line is when another person's body is involved, which is why I'm pro-life. I have no interest in controlling people, invading people's homes or lives, or anything else. I simply believe that society needs to protect the most innocent and helpless of victims.

If someone voted that they are against abortion even if the life of the mother is at stake, I don't want them "drawing any lines" within 100 miles of my wife and daughter. You may view yourself as a libertarian, but you want to obtain the power to control other people's lives in this particular way. I know that you view it as protecting the lives of the innocent. But other people do not agree with you. This is not your decision to make. The point where a dividing embryo becomes "human life" is a question each person must answer for themselves. There is no scientific "proof" one way or another. This is not a scientific question, it is a question of conscience. You have no right to make this decision for other people. Draw your lines somewhere else. Stay away from my wife and daughter.

I love this "dividing embryo" terminology you use. Why don't you go take a peek at the video at Abortion NO / The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and tell me how something with tiny hands, tiny feet, tiny developed fingers, fingerprints, a ribcage, a beating heart, two eyes, a nose, a mouth, etc. is something other than a human being. I dare you. Watch the video the whole way through.

I love this "dividing embryo" terminology you use. Why don't you go take a peek at the video at Abortion NO / The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and tell me how something with tiny hands, tiny feet, tiny developed fingers, fingerprints, a ribcage, a beating heart, two eyes, a nose, a mouth, etc. is something other than a human being. I dare you. Watch the video the whole way through.

I've watched things like that before. That has nothing to do with the issue. In this context the question of human life is a matter of concience, not science. I have absolutely no doubt that the issue seems crystal clear to you. But that does not make it so for all others. This is not your decision to make for anyone but yourself.

That has nothing to do with the issue.

It IS the issue.

In this context the question of human life is a matter of concience, not science.

There are people who believe infanticide, that is the deliberate killing of newborns who are not "up to snuff", should be legal. Is their opinion of when human life begins a matter of conscience, not science? Because certainly THEIR conscience says the newborns are not full human beings.

Why should the question of human life ever be left up to another's judgment? How about in the case of blacks, deemed legally to be 3/5 of a person? How about in the case of Jews and many others in Germany being deemed unfit to live?

It IS the issue.

There are people who believe infanticide, that is the deliberate killing of newborns who are not "up to snuff", should be legal. Is their opinion of when human life begins a matter of conscience, not science? Because certainly THEIR conscience says the newborns are not full human beings.

Why should the question of human life ever be left up to another's judgment? How about in the case of blacks, deemed legally to be 3/5 of a person? How about in the case of Jews and many others in Germany being deemed unfit to live?

This is a return to your usual method of argument that proves nothing. Essentially you are once again making the argument that "a dividing embryo is human life because a dividing embryo is human life." But this obviously proves nothing. You can't prove your argument by assuming that you are correct and declaring yourself the winner.

You ask the question, "why should the question of human life ever be left up to another's judgment." That question obviously includes within it the assumption that a dividing embryo is human life. But that is the very issue in dispute. So, again, you are dragging out your same totally meaningless argument technique that proves nothing.

You appear to have the view that a human life is formed at the moment of conception. You have every right to that opinion. But many other people disagree with you. The issue here is, when does a dividing embryo become human life. That is the question. People have different answers to that question. It is a matter of conscience. It is not your decision to make for everyone else.

Now, are you going to respond again by saying, but how can we leave decisions about human life to other people's judgment. Are you really going to do that again and again? Because it is getting boring.

We all know that 396 is an idiot! We know that! I did word it wrong but regardless. My point in this exercise is to see how many would sit on which side of the fence. I really only wanted 2 categories pro life or pro choice. But I knew that someone would complain that there were not enough choices so I put the third one in. And at the end of the 3rd choice I should have put ect. Like rape,baby dying, AND SO ON. But for me I choose pro life, becuase I belive that all things are to be. and there is never any guarentee that a mother or child will die. Even if the dr. says 95% chance of death there is still a chance. And truly when we are talking about abortion, it is only a small % of people that thier life is in danger. So 250000 abortions a year for me is to much carnage to to start being afraid of offending poor little morjon Because I voted pro life (which is what it truly is PRO LIFE!)

We all know that 396 is an idiot! We know that! I did word it wrong but regardless. My point in this exercise is to see how many would sit on which side of the fence. I really only wanted 2 categories pro life or pro choice. But I knew that someone would complain that there were not enough choices so I put the third one in. And at the end of the 3rd choice I should have put ect. Like rape,baby dying, AND SO ON. But for me I choose pro life, becuase I belive that all things are to be. and there is never any guarentee that a mother or child will die. Even if the dr. says 95% chance of death there is still a chance. And truly when we are talking about abortion, it is only a small % of people that thier life is in danger. So 250000 abortions a year for me is to much carnage to to start being afraid of offending poor little morjon Because I voted pro life (which is what it truly is PRO LIFE!)

Thank you for your clarification, 396power. I don't think you're an idiot. One has to be educated in poll-taking to set up a proper poll -- people get it wrong all the time -- even in the media.

I assumed your third choice was rape, fetal deformity, etc., which is why I voted the way I did. I guess I assumed right. I think everyone else did, too -- as I'm confident people don't believe a mother should be required to die to save the life of her child (even though some would choose to).

BTW, there are over 1.5 million abortions in the US alone every year, much more than 250,000. There were over 4,000 today alone.