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

I can certainly see that to a Christian abortion is not just about a woman's body. This makes sense within the framework of your beliefs. What I am saying is that there are other folks who do not share this belief system and to insist upon imposing your beliefs upon the civil framework of a country which was founded upon the vision of a secular and civil democracy, not a theocracy, is simply wrong-headed. This is why I suggest that no Christian be forced to involved him or herself directly in this business of abortion. At the same time you must understand that your religious beliefs are yours and thus must not be allowed to inform public policy.

Green: As usual, you give a reasoned and honest response, thank you. But I must disagree with this part of your post. If only secular people can make decisions regarding policy in our country, we wouldn't have a country, at least not like we do have. The founders were almost all Christians; God and our "God-given rights" were very important and played a huge part in the structure of our laws and Constitution. We were given "freedom OF religion", not FROM religion. Meaning we could believe and worship any way we saw fit. Most people here profess to a belief in God, though their particular religions or idiology vary. It appears that you are stating that those of us holding a particular religious view should not be allowed to have input on laws and policy making. Are you saying that religious people can not be trusted to make sound policy, or to see the whole picture? We live here too, pay taxes too, and have a vested interest in seeing our country be as sound as possible. To suggest that only atheists can decide for the rest of us is unbelievable. Or maybe I am not understanding correctly what you are stating?

To me it seems unfair that some people view Christians as judgemental just for expressing our beleifs, but when others express their beleifs its just their point of view.

Please show me one post where anyone said a Christian should not feel free to express their beliefs. That is not the issue here. The issue is that Christians attempt to force other people to live by their beliefs. That is where the problem is.

In your post your are complaining about a problem that does not exist, and in the process you are avoiding the real issue.

Mark: In several previous posts, the suggestion was made that pro-life or Christian people should not try to influence abortion policy. That was what I was referring to by the "stifling" remark. And while I understand what you are saying regarding abortion, you didn't address the suicide issue. Again, a person is taking a life. If you would try to help that person, then you are interferring with their wishes for their own bodies. Our government interfers with our bodies in many ways. Why is this way off limits? Remember, for 200 years, abortion was not legal. One could argue that NON-religious people foisted their "idiology" on the rest of us and changed what had been considered right and the norm. Where do you see Christians doing this now? Abortion is still legal, and even though there is much debate, it has not been abolished.

In my opinion, society and the lives of children have not improved with the legality of abortion. Every week, sometimes every DAY we hear of another mother killing her kids. In this latest one, the mother left her babies in the car while she worked. When she came out and found them dead from the heat she drove home, put the kids in trash bags, put the bags under the sink, then went out to get a sandwich. How dead are you inside when you can do that? I believe that abortion and the ease with which we can dispose of our problems has cheapened life and is creating many soulless people. I wish I didn't see it that way, but I can't help that my heart grieves for what we are losing.

Mark: In several previous posts, the suggestion was made that pro-life or Christian people should not try to influence abortion policy. That was what I was referring to by the "stifling" remark. And while I understand what you are saying regarding abortion, you didn't address the suicide issue. Again, a person is taking a life. If you would try to help that person, then you are interferring with their wishes for their own bodies. Our government interfers with our bodies in many ways. Why is this way off limits? Remember, for 200 years, abortion was not legal. One could argue that NON-religious people foisted their "idiology" on the rest of us and changed what had been considered right and the norm. Where do you see Christians doing this now? Abortion is still legal, and even though there is much debate, it has not been abolished.

In my opinion, society and the lives of children have not improved with the legality of abortion. Every week, sometimes every DAY we hear of another mother killing her kids. In this latest one, the mother left her babies in the car while she worked. When she came out and found them dead from the heat she drove home, put the kids in trash bags, put the bags under the sink, then went out to get a sandwich. How dead are you inside when you can do that? I believe that abortion and the ease with which we can dispose of our problems has cheapened life and is creating many soulless people. I wish I didn't see it that way, but I can't help that my heart grieves for what we are losing.

I think a lot of what you say makes sense and your ideas have the power to persuade people. For every woman who is persuaded by your ideas, and decides not to have an abortion, that will be a great thing for the universe in my opinion. I hope you and people like you do everything you can to persuade more and more women not to have abortions.

The place where we diverge is in the area of a lack of choice.

My reason for advocating choice here is not because of the argument that "this is my body and no one can tell me what to do with it." I agree that the government controls our bodies in a number of ways. I advocate choice here because abortion is just plain different. It is unique. It involves two entities where there is definitely going to be a loser no matter what happens. And the consequences of a decision in this area last a lifetime. I simply believe that no one has the right to force others to take action in this area that goes against their belief system. No matter how much you think you are "helping" them, they don't see it that way.

Another issue is that women are going to get abortions no matter whether they are legal or not. It's just that if they are illegal, many more women will die and suffer grave injuries due to unsanitary circumstances, etc. Just because abortions are illegal does not mean they don't happen.

I also have to say that in my view it is too much of a stretch to blame the general inhumanity of the world on the legality of abortion. I do not believe that because abortion is legal it has now become acceptable to kill your kids, put them in trash bags, and go get a sandwich. I just don't think that there is any evidence that there are more crimes against children now than there were before, or that it is caused by the legality of abortion.

But aside from all that, I say again with all sincerity that I hope you continue advocating your position forcefully. With any luck, you will be able to convince many women to choose not to have abortions.

Green: As usual, you give a reasoned and honest response, thank you. But I must disagree with this part of your post. If only secular people can make decisions regarding policy in our country, we wouldn't have a country, at least not like we do have. The founders were almost all Christians; God and our "God-given rights" were very important and played a huge part in the structure of our laws and Constitution. We were given "freedom OF religion", not FROM religion. Meaning we could believe and worship any way we saw fit. Most people here profess to a belief in God, though their particular religions or idiology vary. It appears that you are stating that those of us holding a particular religious view should not be allowed to have input on laws and policy making. Are you saying that religious people can not be trusted to make sound policy, or to see the whole picture? We live here too, pay taxes too, and have a vested interest in seeing our country be as sound as possible. To suggest that only atheists can decide for the rest of us is unbelievable. Or maybe I am not understanding correctly what you are stating?

Thank you, L8, for the above response. To tell you the truth, one of the things that I prize about living in the west is that we are able to come together on a website like this one and discuss these matters without personal prejudice. I find this to be extraordinary and certainly not an option available in ever so many parts of the world. We are lucky folks, are we not?

I guess what I am proposing is not that atheists get to decide for the rest of you but simply that the atheist point of view might properly be considered to be the default point of view on the abortion issue.

By leaving the civil law where it currently stands those individuals who find abortion to be morally repugnant can opt out of engaging in this activity. This would mean that no woman would be forced to have an abortion against her will and no doctor, nurse, or pharmacist who found themselves uncomfortable with aiding and abetting an abortion would be forced to do so. Such legislation will allow those individuals who do not subscribe to this moral ideology to have the freedom to opt out of aborting or assisting in an abortion. It is also to be expected that those individuals who are seeking abortions will be correctly advised when they wander into the arms of pro-life groups, the ones who mask their intentions by claiming that they are pro-choice.

I guess what I would like to see is a level playing ground. For sure those people who are anti-abortion must have the right to present their point of view and to proffer options. Equally, the right to opt for an abortion must not be taken away from women.

Another issue is that women are going to get abortions no matter whether they are legal or not. It's just that if they are illegal, many more women will die and suffer grave injuries due to unsanitary circumstances, etc. Just because abortions are illegal does not mean they don't happen.

I actually agree with you here and it is the one conflicting emotion I have about doing away with legal abortions. I don't know the answer, although the fact that women still die in legal abortions, as well as childbirth, makes me feel that there can be no perfect solution.

I also have to say that in my view it is too much of a stretch to blame the general inhumanity of the world on the legality of abortion. I do not believe that because abortion is legal it has now become acceptable to kill your kids, put them in trash bags, and go get a sandwich. I just don't think that there is any evidence that there are more crimes against children now than there were before, or that it is caused by the legality of abortion.

I don't think abortion is the main reason for the inhumanity of the world, but I do think it contributes. What I have noticed growing over the years is the intense focus on self...and I think we have lost some of our ability to think in terms of self-sacrifice because of it.

I appreciate your input and willingness to understand other viewpoints. There is no easy answer to this, if any answer at all, but it does give us a good forum to exchange ideas and that benefits us all.

And it follows that America is now under attack for America is now under pressure to declare itself as a specifically Christian country. It strikes me that the founding fathers of America were awfully careful to skirt around this issue when they were labouring over the Constitution. It also strikes me that the only other modern countries which seek to tether their sense of self to a strictly religious definition of self are the Islamic countries. Such countries are rightfully referred to as theocracies.

It is true that I become chippy when I note any intention on the part of Canada's fabulous southern neighbour to drift into the zone of screw-up. And it is true that I have even met Americans who claim that I am anti-Yank. Hah! They are like so wrong...., sez Green in valley-speak. I am crazy about the U.S. and this is why I am so anxious that the doors to intellectual debate remain open. You all live in a country which has great valuable. End of Green's boring sermon. And she wishes to present you all with her appologies, eh. :heh::heh::heh:

By leaving the civil law where it currently stands those individuals who find abortion to be morally repugnant can opt out of engaging in this activity. This would mean that no woman would be forced to have an abortion against her will and no doctor, nurse, or pharmacist who found themselves uncomfortable with aiding and abetting an abortion would be forced to do so. Such legislation will allow those individuals who do not subscribe to this moral ideology to have the freedom to opt out of aborting or assisting in an abortion. It is also to be expected that those individuals who are seeking abortions will be correctly advised when they wander into the arms of pro-life groups, the ones who mask their intentions by claiming that they are pro-choice.

I guess what I would like to see is a level playing ground. For sure those people who are anti-abortion must have the right to present their point of view and to proffer options.

Thanks for that explanation, Green. I find myself agreeing with you here, if only as a second option... At this point in time, pharmacists can be arrested for not dispensing "morning after pills", even when it goes against their religious beliefs. There may be punishments for other professionals not wanting to be involved in the abortion process (I'm not sure), but in any case the idea of not forcing anyone to be involved if they find it morally repugnant is a great one.

And it follows that America is now under attack for America is now under pressure to declare itself as a specifically Christian country. It strikes me that the founding fathers of America were awfully careful to skirt around this issue when they were labouring over the Constitution. It also strikes me that the only other modern countries which seek to tether their sense of self to a strictly religious definition of self are the Islamic countries. Such countries are rightfully referred to as theocracies.

Uh, Green, where did you hear this? I haven't heard of any such attack to make this a declared "Christian" country. There are many Christians trying to hold on to our long-time traditions of keeping the word "God" on our money and in our Pledge, and to maintain the right to have religious displays at Christmas, etc., but that is the only thing I have heard. The only attack I have seen is from the other side, specifically the ACLU, which has successfully gotten rid of displays on public property.

"not freedom from religion" but "...freedom of religion" - a very fine distinction! And that goes for all religious choices, right? If we are meant to be able to practice any religion we choose, why should we be offended that the word God be taken off our money or anywhere else? Not all religions worship the Christian "God" whose name you want on our money, on our public buildings and everywhere else.

I am a Christian but I do not feel threatened by the suggestion of the words, "under God" being taken out of the Pledge of Allegience. During the Eisenhower administration, the phrase "under God" was added to our Pledge. It wasn't put there by our framers of the Constitution, but by our contempories. I don't think it reflects the "freedom of religion" choice that we are promised. We are pledging our allegience to the flag of our country as a patriotic act, not pledging our allegience to God, otherwise how are people who do not believe in our God supposed to make that pledge?

Why does it bother people so much that God be placed on our money and on our buildings and in our songs and pledge and all the rest? In Great Britain, the Queen in on their money. References to the monarchy are everywhere. Does that make them a country free of religion? No, it does not.

"not freedom from religion" but "...freedom of religion" - a very fine distinction! And that goes for all religious choices, right? If we are meant to be able to practice any religion we choose, why should we be offended that the word God be taken off our money or anywhere else? Not all religions worship the Christian "God" whose name you want on our money, on our public buildings and everywhere else.

Of course this goes for all religions! And the word "God" does not imply the Christian God. Most other religions speak of "God", also.

I am a Christian but I do not feel threatened by the suggestion of the words, "under God" being taken out of the Pledge of Allegience. During the Eisenhower administration, the phrase "under God" was added to our Pledge. It wasn't put there by our framers of the Constitution, but by our contempories. I don't think it reflects the "freedom of religion" choice that we are promised. We are pledging our allegience to the flag of our country as a patriotic act, not pledging our allegience to God, otherwise how are people who do not believe in our God supposed to make that pledge?.

Yes, I know that the "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance was added in the 1950s. But from the earliest days of our country we have incorporated the word "God" into many of our most important documents. The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights..." Why, since it was OK for 200 years, are we now being pressured to take that word out of so many things? Those words helped make our nation something unique and special, and the kind of place people wanted to come to. So now we need to change it to please a segment of the population? What about the segment that WANTS the word there? Don't they count?

Why does it bother people so much that God be placed on our money and on our buildings and in our songs and pledge and all the rest? In Great Britain, the Queen in on their money. References to the monarchy are everywhere. Does that make them a country free of religion? No, it does not.

It doesn't "bother" me, I just don't understand why it needs to be changed. If I lived in England and a group of people who don't like the monarchy demanded the Queen's picture be taken off the money, I would feel the same.

L8BloomR: Well I don't completely agree with your reasoning, but I do believe that it is silly to consider taking the word God off our buildings and our money. It may not bother you, but I think that some people are quite up in arms over the whole issue.

I believe that our country was predominately Christian when the word God was used on our public buildings and our currency, so I do believe that the intent was to imply Christian in that usage. As free thinking people, we can all define the word God however we choose, but do you really think that Buddists or Muslims, for instance, believe that our government uses that word to mean any God, or their God?

I believe that people wanted to come to and continue to want to come to this country because of the freedom we have to practice any religion or no religion as well as for all of the other reasons that have made this country great. I don't think that they come here because we use the term "creator" or "God" in our documents. I think those words were used to show the world and to convince ourselves that we are good people, who have a conscience and that we are people who believe that everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Statue of Liberty puts out that message in an even more profound way.

As for me, I don't think there is any harm done when we use the terms, "creator" and "God" in our public documents. I chose to address the issue the way I did, in an effort to get a discussion going because it is a relevant subject today. But I do think that the argument that our government means for it to be interpreted as any God, is transparent and bogus.

As for the Pledge of Allegience, I believe the words, "under God" should be removed. I am a Christian and I have never felt comfortable with it. I believe I explained why in an earlier thread so I won't bore you with it again.

Btw, do you believe that having a manger in front of the court house is meant to depict anything but a Christian based scene? Not that I think there is anything wrong with having a Manger scene in the town quare at Christmas, but I can certainly understand the opposition to it, can't you?

Btw, in Great Britian, they say and use the phrase "God Save The Queen" quite often.

BJean: You are taking a simple comment I made to Green about secular government and turning it into a debate. For instance, I never said that a manger scene was not Christian, or that people come to this country because we used the word "God" in our documents. I merely said that when this country was founded, God was important to most of the principles involved, and they used that belief to create humane rules and laws that were appealing to many people who subsequently decided to come here. I believe that the word "God" in those documents was benign and would not be offensive to any religious person. I discuss "God" with my Jewish and Muslim friends all the time. They are not offended, as we all believe there is only one God, even if we think of Him in our own unique way.

Along that same line, anyone coming to the U.S. probably understands a bit of our history, our Christian roots, etc. Why should a Buddist or Muslim feel offended that we don't share their country's culture? We have a history and a culture of our own that tries to include everyone, but we have to have some core. Can you imagine going to Iran and demanding that they take down their religious symbols because you find them offensive? And my Jewish girlfriend who lives in Israel says that it is against the law to display manger scenes or to hand out Christian bibles. They even arrange their streets so that they don't form a cross! Yet many Christians live there, without anger or making demands. I don't think I am wrong for thinking that our country should be proud of how we started, who we are and what we have accomplished. We are a most inclusive and welcoming country, but we do not have to give up our soul to try to please everyone. As you know, that is impossible.

Ooops, sorry, my bad. I did not realize that your comments were only to be answered by Green. I will butt out.

P.S. I honestly was not trying to debate or argue. I find it a facinating topic because I see both sides of the issue and agree with both sides in certain ways.

I apologize for interpreting your words improperly. When you said, "Those words helped make our nation something unique and special, and the kind of place people wanted to come to", I thought you meant that those words in and of themselves motivated people to want to come here.

What you said about your Israeli friend who says that her country does not allow certain Christian symbols, etc., in her country and that many Christians live there without making demands, actually makes a good point for both sides of the discussion.

Btw, my cousins were missionaries in Israel for many years. They ran a Baptist sponsored Christian school there. It was against the law for them to accept Jewish children and they were only able to teach the local Arab children there.

You do agree that Israelis live in very dangerous times?