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

BJ....

I so understand where you are coming from. The thing that tempers my stance on abortion is the same thing that makes me unwilling to support all-out American domination of the entire world's behavior: we are not God.....I am not God.

I have a stepdaughter from a previous marriage who is just worthless. She broke her father's heart many times over before he died. She steals, lies, "borrows" money that she has no intention of ever repaying. She has been arrested numerous times, does drugs, and was very promiscuous starting at age 15 or so. To no one's surprise, she was also sexually irresponsible. Today she is sterile, thank God, due to a raging case of untreated PID. And along the way, she had at least 3 abortions. I did not know about them until after the fact, but even if Kathy had taken me into her confidence beforehand, I am not sure I would have discouraged her. It is a blessing that she never gave birth. Sometimes being born is not the best thing that can happen to a person, just as dying is not necessarily the worst.

I don't know how many Jackie Kennedy fans might be on this thread, but when she was Jackie O, our very Catholic former First Lady arranged an abortion for her teenage stepdaughter.

Having been both Catholic and Christian. For my part, when I was a Catholic I was not a Christian. I know that's not true of everybody, but it is true of me; when I became a Christian I left the Catholic church. I don't want to get into a theological debate here, but I should tell you that you don't need to do a history of religion with me. I do completely understand Catholicism, having attended a Jesuit University and having studied the religion intensely.

I have a newsflash for you, G Lady.....if you weren't a Christian when you belonged to the Catholic Church, then you weren't a Catholic, either.

And if you understand Catholicism "completely" then you surely know that we were the original Christians, and you know, too, that Christianity is our religion, just as Jesus' religion was Judaism. And within Christianity there are many denominations, none more "Christian" than the next.

I have a newsflash for you, G Lady.....if you weren't a Christian when you belonged to the Catholic Church, then you weren't a Catholic, either.

I believe I have said earlier in this thread that there are "social Catholics" -- by that I mean people who identify themselves as Catholics, participate in Catholic rites and rituals, attend Catholic mass on a regular basis, and are not Christians in the sense that they do not fully follow and accept the teachings of Christ. I fit into that category for many, many years. I believed myself to be fully Catholic (and fully Christian) but I did not understand Christ as I do now, and therefore consider myself to have been steeped in the knowledge of Christianity but lacking a heart-belief.

And if you understand Catholicism "completely" then you surely know that we were the original Christians, and you know, too, that Christianity is our religion, just as Jesus' religion was Judaism. And within Christianity there are many denominations, none more "Christian" than the next.

So just to be crystal clear, if someone asked you if you were the same religion as I, you would answer yes?

I believe I have said earlier in this thread that there are "social Catholics" -- by that I mean people who identify themselves as Catholics, participate in Catholic rites and rituals, attend Catholic mass on a regular basis, and are not Christians in the sense that they do not fully follow and accept the teachings of Christ.

And who gets to say exactly what that entails.... to "fully follow and accept the teachings of Christ"? Let me guess.....the fundamentalist Christians, right?

That's just sooooooo typical.

So just to be crystal clear, if someone asked you if you were the same religion as I, you would answer yes?

Of course! We are both Christians, just as we are both humans. But we are not the same denomination. Just as humans may be black, white, etc. Their race may be different, but that doesn't make them less human.

Your church members may call themselves Evangelical Christians, but that does not exclude other denominations from the brotherhood of Christianity. For one thing, it would be historically inaccurate, and for another, Christ would not approve. He said so in His book.

And who gets to say exactly what that entails.... to "fully follow and accept the teachings of Christ"? Let me guess.....the fundamentalist Christians, right?

Don't put words in my mouth. I have never denigrated your religion and I expect the same of you. When I considered myself a Catholic and a Christian, I did not place my trust in and lay my life before Jesus. I'm not saying you don't. I'm just saying I didn't.

We are both Christians, just as we are both humans. But we are not the same denomination. Just as humans may be black, white, etc. Their race may be different, but that doesn't make them less human.

Your church members may call themselves Evangelical Christians, but that does not exclude other denominations from the brotherhood of Christianity. For one thing, it would be historically inaccurate, and for another, Christ would not approve. He said so in His book.

I'm quite surprised that you consider yourself to practice the same religion as I -- especially with your disparaging comments above. Everyone I know makes a distinction between Protestants and Catholics, considering them two different religions -- with some similarities, but not the same religion. I would never say I had the same religion as a Catholic, and when I was Catholic I would never have said I was the same religion as a Protestant. But be that as it may, it appears this is just a curious difference of opinion and perhaps definition.

When I was a practicing Mormon, I was constantly harrassed by born-agains for not being "Christian". Um, it's right there in the title. That's pretty Christian if you ask me.

I'm sure Christ would be ashamed to be associated with many of the things that people do and did in his name.

I was looking at the poll results and I had a thought about the three categories. There is "pro life," "pro choice" and "pro choice only for extreme cases ie Mother in danger of death."

Ten people so far voted in the category of "pro life." Yet in this poll "pro life" means that they would be perfectly willing to let the mother die to save a 6 week old dividing embryo that may not even have a brain, and may not even be born alive at all. That way of looking at things is so bizarre to me I can't even fathom it. If ever a category was misnamed, "pro life" is misnamed in this poll, as it is defined. People who voted in that category in this poll would gladly let the mother die. That does not seem like like "pro life" to me at all.

I was looking at the poll results and I had a thought about the three categories. There is "pro life," "pro choice" and "pro choice only for extreme cases ie Mother in danger of death."

Ten people so far voted in the category of "pro life." Yet in this poll "pro life" means that they would be perfectly willing to let the mother die to save a 6 week old dividing embryo that may not even have a brain, and may not even be born alive at all. That way of looking at things is so bizarre to me I can't even fathom it. If ever a category was misnamed, "pro life" is misnamed in this poll, as it is defined. People who voted in that category in this poll would gladly let the mother die. That does not seem like like "pro life" to me at all.

I have truly never heard of a case where a woman died because she refused an abortion. Could you reference one, please?

Although abortion is a very safe procedure in the United States, the probability of complications and death increases with the length of gestation. For example, abortion at eight weeks or less of gestation has a fatality rate of 0.4 per 100,000 abortions. At 16 to 20 weeks, the fatality rate is nearly seven deaths per 100,000 abortions.

Pregnancy, planned or not, carries a fatality rate of 11.8 per 100,000, so childbirth is ALWAYS going to be more dangerous. And legalized abortion has not lowered those stats, by the way, as it certainly should have if abortion were saving women's lives.

Regardless of what the "stats" are, I believe it is quite revealing that people voted to sacrifice the life of the mother. If this were no issue at all, why would there be a category in the poll? I understand the point that you are making about the stats, but I still think that the poll reveals the thinking and priority of the voters. If I were a mother with a difficult pregnancy, I don't think I would consider these "pro life" voters to be on my side. In fact, I'd be pretty terrified of them.

I have no doubt that others can and will disagree, but that's how I see it.

When I was a practicing Mormon, I was constantly harrassed by born-agains for not being "Christian". Um, it's right there in the title. That's pretty Christian if you ask me.

My granddaughter has a friend who is undeniably Hispanic. All four of Veronika's grandparents were born and raised in Mexico, but she, unlike some of her cousins, has never been there. She speaks no Spanish, knows no Mexican history, and is not Catholic. Her family is not planning a big quinceanera party for her upcoming 15th birthday. Some of her cousins say she is not really Mexican. They call her a "poser Mexican", because she does not fit their image of a young Hispanic woman. I told her that was ridiculous. DNA does not lie, nor does history. And to argue otherwise is anti-intellectual, IMHO.

Regardless of what the "stats" are, I believe it is quite revealing that people voted to sacrifice the life of the mother. If this were no issue at all, why would there be a category in the poll? I understand the point that you are making about the stats, but I still think that the poll reveals the thinking and priority of the voters. If I were a mother with a difficult pregnancy, I don't think I would consider these "pro life" voters to be on my side. In fact, I'd be pretty terrified of them.

I have no doubt that others can and will disagree, but that's how I see it.

No one voted to "sacrifice the mother". That simply is not an issue in this day and age, in this country. I know a woman with one kidney who carried to term. It did not kill either her or the child.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America released its 2004-2005 Annual Report on June 1, 2006 revealing a record income of $882 million and Planned Parenthood’s second-highest profit of $63 million. The organization also set a record number of abortions performed in one year - 255,015. How many of those do you seriously think were performed to save the mother's life?

And by the way.....war is not very pro-life, either. Which do you think is a bigger threat to the life of a pregnant woman, being deployed to Iraq or giving birth?

No one voted to "sacrifice the mother". That simply is not an issue in this day and age, in this country. I know a woman with one kidney who carried to term. It did not kill either her or the child.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America released its 2004-2005 Annual Report on June 1, 2006 revealing a record income of $882 million and Planned Parenthood’s second-highest profit of $63 million. The organization also set a record number of abortions performed in one year - 255,015. How many of those do you seriously think were performed to save the mother's life?

And by the way.....war is not very pro-life, either. Which do you think is a bigger threat to the life of a pregnant woman, being deployed to Iraq or giving birth?

Again, the points you are making, while valid as far as they go, do not address the point I am making. I think that the way people voted in this poll reveals a frightening thought process, notwithstanding the "facts" and "stats" of the dangers of childbirth. That is how I see it. If you believe that all those people really understood that "in this day and age" risk to the mother's health is not an issue, then you have the right to believe that. I disagree.

I'm also not sure the point you are making about the war in Iraq. I certainly don't support that war. The fact that the war is even more dangerous than pregnancy does not seem particularly relevant to the issue at hand. And for that matter, it seems to me that "pro-life" republics/conservative christians are far more likely to support the war than those awful liberals.

My point here is that the "pro life" voters were offered a choice, and they voted for the category that reflects their beliefs. That is, even where the mother's life is in danger, there should be no option for an abortion. I think that is terrifying. And I think that you are rationalizing this result with "statistics" and speculation about what these people "really meant." We're just going to have to disagree on that.

Added here because the "Edit" function still does not work properly (DAMN,DAMN,DAMN)....

The poll gives these choices:

1. For Pro Life

2. For Pro Choice

3. Pro Choice only for extreme cases (ie: mothers in danger of death)

Voting for number 3 could just as easily mean, "I am pro-choice only when the mother's health is at risk, or the baby is apt to be born with severe birth defects." The "ie" means "an example of" (extreme cases). It does not limit the voter's reasons to "mothers in danger of death", but merely uses that as one criteria.

So you think those 11 people (and I was not one of them, by the way) gave no thought whatsoever to the possibility of whether there was any real and valid concern for the mother's life or not? In other words, you believe that if they were faced with a definite "either or" choice - the mother or the unborn, unviable, child, they would say "let them both die". Is that your position?

Maybe we could hear from those 11 people, and what their mindset was when they voted. After all, only they know for sure.

My point here is that the "pro life" voters were offered a choice, and they voted for the category that reflects their beliefs. That is, even where the mother's life is in danger, there should be no option for an abortion. I think that is terrifying. And I think that you are rationalizing this result with "statistics" and speculation about what these people "really meant." We're just going to have to disagree on that.

I am not rationalizing anything. And properly referenced statistics, by the way, are a perfectly valid argument in any debate. Your arguments, however, always seem to be curiously lacking in that respect. You claim to enjoy debating on the forum, and that's peachy, but you don't get to define the rules.

PS....I am not what is generally considered "pro-life". I do not support abortion on demand, but neither do I lobby against it, nor do I make political choices based on a candidates stand on that issue. I am a woman. I feel for my sisters who are faced with this decision, for it is only by the grace of God that I was never one of them. I am a mother. I feel for the babies whose lives are snuffed out for the sake of mere convenience. Moreover, I am the mother of an adopted child. I know firsthand that the fruits of an unplanned pregnancy can bring immeasurable joy to the life of another woman. I am a Christian, and I hold life sacred from the moment of conception. So you see, it's not as easy as you seem to think, to take a stand, to cast a vote, to make a choice. A little consideration, and a little less nastiness for the "other side" would be nice.