home
RSS
Survey: Few religious groups want Roe v. Wade overturned despite belief abortion morally wrong
Roe v. Wade has remained controversial in the four decades since the landmark Supreme Court decision.
January 16th, 2013
10:00 AM ET

Survey: Few religious groups want Roe v. Wade overturned despite belief abortion morally wrong

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) - Forty years after the Supreme Court protected abortion rights in Roe v. Wade, a new survey finds that white evangelicals remain the only major religious group that supports overturning the landmark ruling, even though most such groups find abortion morally wrong.

Slightly more than half (54%) of white evangelicals, according to the Pew Research Center study, favor completely overturning the 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to have an abortion. No other religious group, including white mainline Protestants, black Protestants and white Catholics, agreed with completely overturning the ruling.

In fact, substantial majorities of white Protestants (76%), black Protestants (65%) and white Catholics (63%) say the ruling should not be over turned, the survey found.

But support for keeping Roe v. Wade intact does not mean these religious majorities believe abortion is morally acceptable.

A majority of every religious group sampled - white evangelicals (73%), black Protestants (58%) and Catholics (58%) and a plurality of white mainline Protestants (36%) - responded that abortion was morally wrong. Those respondents who find it morally wrong are also overwhelmingly likely to support overturning the law, compared with keeping it intact - 85% to 5%.

"What is interesting about this aspect of abortion attitudes is that while many people find abortion to be problematic, they may either personally feel it is wrong or favor greater restrictions. Overturning Roe v. Wade is not nearly as supported an idea," said Michael Dimock, director at the Pew Research Center. "The vast majority of evangelicals say they see abortion as morally wrong, but barely a majority say that they want to see Roe v. Wade overturned."

Dimock points out that while more than 70% of white evangelicals find abortion morally wrong, only slightly more than 50% say the ruling should be overturned. "There is somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% of evangelicals who are personally opposed to abortion but don’t want to see this precedent changed," Dimock said.

The religiously unaffiliated were the only group in which more people say they find abortion morally acceptable rather than wrong. Twenty-four percent of the group said it was acceptable, compared with 20% who said it was wrong. Nearly half (43%) said it was not a moral issue.

White evangelicals (64%) are also the most ardent that abortion should be illegal in “all or most cases.” Mormons (63%) and Hispanic Catholics (53%) are the only other two religious groups where more respondents favor illegality in all or most cases.

“By contrast, nearly nine in 10 Jews say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do about seven in 10 Americans with no religious affiliation and 63% of white mainline Protestants,” the survey reported. “Among both black Protestants and white Catholics, 54% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.”

The establishment of a woman’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy has been controversial in the four decades since the Supreme Court decision. The court’s ruling was not close, however. Seven of the nine justices voted in favor of making abortion a fundamental right under the Constitution.

Anti-abortion rights activists have demanded the ruling be repealed, a move that would likely allow states to decide whether to allow abortions or not. With the judiciary becoming more conservative during George W. Bush's presidency, some observers said the court under Chief Justice John Roberts would be anti-abortion activists best opportunity to relitigate Roe v. Wade.

"Roe v. Wade certainly did engage the pro-life movement by being so symbolic of an issue, but I don’t think the level of opposition to abortion has really shifted that much over time," Dimock said. "For a very contentious ruling, the public's view on it has remained fairly stable."

Frequency of religious services attendance is also an indicator of whether a poll respondent wants Roe v. Wade overturned. According to the survey, people who attend weekly or more support overturning the decision by 55% to 44%.

That number is substantially different among respondents who attend church less often. According to the survey, 76% among those don't support overturning the ruling, compared with 17% who do.

The Pew Research Center results are part of a study released with the 40-year anniversary of Roe v. Wade in mind. The telephone survey of 1,502 adults was conducted from January 9 through Sunday, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9%.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Abortion • Belief

soundoff (887 Responses)
  1. ahappyfarmer

    Serious question. Why is this so hard to overturn and make illegal? I know people will still do it if it was over turned but really why?

    January 17, 2013 at 8:01 pm |
    • sam stone

      because people want it to be legal

      January 17, 2013 at 9:08 pm |
    • Akira

      Once something is declared consti tutional, by the Supreme Court, it's highly unlikely that it will be overturned...and inserting religious beliefs into it is even a more slippery slope.
      No one wants to have a right taken away.
      Witness the 2nd amendment argument against wanting to ban AR-15's.
      Same concept.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:09 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      It's not stopping Obamer from trying to take away a very fundamental right.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:27 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'd ask "which right", but I'd get called a cvnt again.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:31 pm |
    • Observer

      President Obama is not stopping people from having weapons to defend themselves. He is trying to stop people from having weapons of mass-killing. If a hunter requires an assault weapon to kill animals, he has no skills as a hunter.

      The second amendment guarantees weapons to children; mental cases; felons; etc. It's only because of GUN CONTROL that they don't have them.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:34 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Observer, "The second amendment guarantees weapons to children; mental cases; felons; etc. It's only because of GUN CONTROL that they don't have them."

      A good point for those who read the 2nd amendment as referring to individual ownership.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:36 pm |
    • Gir

      A bit off topic, but: All free thinkers should posses a firearm. Your rights are not guaranteed in a nation filled with delusional religionists. Who knows what crimes against humanity they will justify with their book of fairy tales? They've done it before. Who knows when the task of defending your own rights will fall to you, the individual, when our government is infested with religionists who can easily pass their hate-filled beliefs into law?

      January 17, 2013 at 9:42 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      "If a hunter requires an assault weapon to kill animals, he has no skills as a hunter."

      The use of semi-automatic weapons is hardly 'sporting'.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:43 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      List of films based on Tom Tom' character.

      The Cvnt of Monte Cristo
      ChinaCvnt
      Honey I Shrunk The Cvnts
      No Country For Old Cvnts
      Star Cvnts
      Taxi Cvnt
      The Seventh Cvnt
      A Clockwork Cvnt
      There Will Be Cvnts
      Inglorious Cvnts
      Resevoir Cvnts
      Tinker Tailor Soldier Cvnt
      The Cvnt Lebowski
      Cvnt After Reading
      Barton Cvnt
      The Men Who Stare At Cvnts
      The Cvntfather
      The Cvntfather PartII
      True Cvnt
      Cvnt Fiction
      JarCvnt
      Cvnt And Cvnter
      RosenCvnt And GuildenCvnt are Cvnts
      District Cvnt
      Aguirre, The Wrath Of Cvnt
      Citizen Cvnt

      January 17, 2013 at 9:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You must spend a lot of time thinking about cvnts, RL. Maybe it's because you never get near any.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Only idiots think Obama intends to "take guns away." They're the same morons who think the ACA is a crime.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:47 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Reposted:

      "Who knows when the task of defending your own rights will fall to you, the individual, when our government is infested with religionists who can easily pass their hate-filled beliefs into law?"

      unfortunately that mind-set is exactly what started it all.

      The (English) Bill of Rights – 1688 (Julian)
      Subjects’ Arms
      That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law

      To say atheists need to arm themselves is to turn the clock back 325 years. Rule of law must mean something.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:48 pm |
    • Hmmmmmm

      I wonder how happy he would be if we canceled all farm subsidies...

      January 17, 2013 at 9:54 pm |
    • Jen

      Oh Tom, thanks for the laugh!

      Agreed. Only nuts think that Obama is trying to overturn the second amendment.

      Speaking of nut cases, have you seen any of Logic's latest posts on the latest hobby lobby thread? Still crazy as ever.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:55 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Hi, Jen. You're most welcome. Did you know that I'm a cvnt? RL says so. It MUST be true; he never has opinions that are "wrong."

      Haven't looked at the Hobby Lobby thread lately. Will check it out.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:58 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      I'm occasionally wrong Tom but you are a cvnt. The first step is admitting you're a cvnt. If I were you I would attend cvnt therapy.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:00 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      As you've been told repeatedly by posters far more intelligent than you are: your opinion does not equal fact.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:05 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      No it doesn't, but your cvntishness has been independently verified.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:08 pm |
    • Jen

      And people that think their second amendment rights are under attack and think that employers having to provide insurance that covers birth control is unfair are c-c-c-c-crazyyyyyyyyy

      January 17, 2013 at 10:12 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Only by people who think you're smart, RL.

      Not a very large group.

      But do go on if it makes you feel like a big man.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:15 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Gee, Jen, you wouldn't be talking about anyone HERE, would you??

      January 17, 2013 at 10:15 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Ok. Enormous Cvnt.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:16 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Goodness. I had no idea I had upset you so.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:18 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I get the notion that RL thinks calling someone a cvnt is just terribly edgy and hip.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:20 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Nope, I'd call you muckluck to be edgy. I call you a cvnt because you are a cvnt. Pretty simple really. Cvnt.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:22 pm |
    • the AnViL

      never call your mom a cvnt... trust me on this one, kids.

      lil tip from your ol' uncle anvil

      January 17, 2013 at 10:25 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Unless she is one, of course.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:26 pm |
    • psych ward staff

      I once heard Margaret Cho say that her mound of Venus so large a sermon could be delivered from it.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:26 pm |
    • psych ward staff

      *was* so large

      January 17, 2013 at 10:28 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      RL's mommy must have washed his mouth out with soap for him to get such a huge kick out of one word.

      Yesterday.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:29 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Tom's Mound of Venus (although with Tom it's just called "Nasty Cvnt") is used as a particle accelerator.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:32 pm |
    • psych ward staff

      why so angry tonight RL?

      January 17, 2013 at 10:33 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Not angry at all, I'm just engaging Tom on her level.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:35 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Tom can dish it out so she can take it too. She is a colossal cvnt of gargantuan proportions. Pantagruel is likely her partner's name. All those who disagree can suck a lemon.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:27 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @RL, Regardless of what TT has done, your response is insulting to all women and lowers the quality of discussion and human interaction in and of itself. Don't be a 4 year old who shouts 'she started it'. You're being just plain nasty.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:31 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      I enjoy being nasty to those who deserve it. And don't give me that feminist claptrap.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:35 pm |
    • End Religion

      I find TTPS's posts some of the most enjoyable on here but it's *because* she's bitter and funny. That combination is probably what RL is referring to. It can't be fun to be on the receiving end of TTPS' wrath. It makes me double-check my spelling! (and I still mess up!)

      January 18, 2013 at 12:15 am |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Tom's wrath consists of ad hominem attacks and evading tricky questions. She is a cvnt.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:18 am |
    • Rational Libertarian

      If I recall correctly, we agreed recently to try and be more civil. About two nights ago we had a disagreement, which was to be expected seeing as how she's the archetypal liberal and I'm a libertarian. She was probably bettering me, as she tends to do everybody. However, she made an invalid point and I called her on it. The argument had been civil until then but she resorted to ad hominems instead of answering me. From now on she will get the same treatment.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:26 am |
    • tallulah13

      Is the "Rational" part of the name supposed to be ironic?

      January 18, 2013 at 10:06 am |
    • Saraswati

      He also apparently doesn't see how typing "cvnt" 26 times in a single post is insulting to women. I can respect a flip out, but that type of ignorant mysogyny is something that runs deep.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:16 am |
    • End Religion

      Cunt is a word like any other, like nigger, or calling a man a cock, it may have implications such as the user's intent to inflame however one ALLOWS that word have emotional impact because of one's own issues. Just like an anti-abortionist can't see a combination of cells is not a child; you can't see a combination of letters is not magical misogyny.

      Where I most often hear "cunt" used is in films (often British) where one man calls another man a stupid cunt, and while I understand it's a word for female genitalia I also equate it with just another color in our palette of language. To me, calling someone a cunt is just calling them a bastard or asshole or dick. They're just word weapons in a crude game of "The Dozens". It doesn't necessarily equate to gender hatred.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      End Religion

      Thank you. I actually grew up in Ireland where people aren't as afraid of words as the typical American. People like Saraswati can be blinded by their own agendas.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
    • End Religion

      Ireland is one of the few places outside the U.S. I'd like to visit one day. You can give me the grand tour, in between calling each other bastards.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      I don't hurl abuse at people (except trolls, obviously) who don't initiate.

      Believe me, Ireland is becoming an increasingly depressing place. It's false economy has collapsed and unemployment is high. Towns and cities are full of drug fueled violence. I haven't been back in a while and I have no immediate plans to return. Beautiful countryside though and it has wonderful misty rain. It's a big bonus also that people are finally beginning to abandon Catholicism in large numbers.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:55 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Abandon it for what?

      January 18, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
  2. Sam Yaza

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq3U09DeKpg&w=640&h=360]

    January 17, 2013 at 5:50 pm |
  3. truth be told

    Abortionists murder and atheists lie. That is how it is.

    January 17, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
    • Observer

      truth be told,

      TRUTH BE ACTUALLY TOLD, at one time, EVERY pregnant woman, child, baby and fetus on the FACE OF THE EARTH was torturously drowned. It wasn't done by an atheist. It was done by God.

      January 17, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      @truth be a moron
      hard to think for yourself when you're a cult member. leave the cult of chritianity and think for yourself.

      January 17, 2013 at 7:37 pm |
  4. Fed Up

    1.2 million babies killed a year and we are worried about banning assault weapons. What a bunch of idiots....

    January 17, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
    • sam stone

      1.2 million babies? how many of these were born?

      January 17, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Mostly hinduism abortions of baby girls in hindered gutter of hinduism, illegality called india by human rights account.

      January 17, 2013 at 4:38 pm |
    • Gir

      1.2 million babies that were not wanted by their mothers, would likely have been raised in poor economic and social conditions, and would have been more likely to end up as unproductive members of society leeching off the gov't either in jail, religionist-backed death row, or the ghettos.

      January 17, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Are you a hindu Magi, filthy fortune teller, hindu sanatan, crook shaman man god of hindu's ignorant s? What makes you think, they would have ended up as you did, hindu, insult to humanity.

      January 17, 2013 at 4:53 pm |
    • wejie

      100% guaranteed fake posing as Muslim.

      January 17, 2013 at 8:03 pm |
  5. Rebel4Christ

    Simran you kidding me? How on earth is it not! Your kill and an INNOCENT human being that didn't deserve to die. I guarantee if the baby had a say they wouldn't want to be aborted. Go to any police station really?!! Oh if the police say its okay it must be okay!

    January 17, 2013 at 3:53 pm |
    • sam stone

      rebel4christ: if you want to blah, blah, fvcking blah that it is murder, we are pointing out that it isn't. deal with it

      January 17, 2013 at 3:58 pm |
    • sam stone

      also, r4c, the folks we drop bombs on while trying to bomb others were innocent and did not want to die. is that murder, too?

      January 17, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
    • End Religion

      your imaginary god doesn't care about innocence or who is deserving of death. Great minds think alike.

      January 17, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
    • Abortion would have been preferable to my childhood

      Having been raised in a good Christian family™ I can assure you that there are worse things than being aborted

      January 17, 2013 at 5:59 pm |
  6. Rebel4Christ

    Simran you kidding me? How on earth is it not! Your kill and an INNOCENT human being that didn't deserve to die. I guarantee if the baby had a say they wouldn't want to be aborted. Go to any police station really?!! Oh if the police say its okay it must be okay!

    January 17, 2013 at 3:50 pm |
    • Observer

      Rebel,

      So every miscarriage should be investigated as a possible homicide and every child born with a defect should be checked for child abuse before birth, right?

      January 17, 2013 at 3:53 pm |
    • psych ward staff

      Just knowing this is R4C is enough to guaranteed her argument is void of facts. I don't even need to see where this belongs. She buys extra strong scented tissue and thinks that makes her a rebel. lol.

      January 17, 2013 at 3:54 pm |
    • Gir

      Yes. The police represents the law, and the law represents the collective morality of the society.

      January 17, 2013 at 3:55 pm |
    • Rebel4Christ

      So if the police said that its okay to murder your neighbor it would be okay? SERIOUSLY

      January 17, 2013 at 11:55 pm |
  7. lol??

    The disgusting problem the A&A's have is their girly-man notions of synthesis in their theism of the dialectic. Thunderdome is MUCH more entertaining. "Two men enter, one man leaves." Not to worry though, when their Frankenstein monster of a gubmint lines em up and shoots em justice will be served.

    January 17, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
    • Observer

      Pure fantasy. Get back to reality. Wake up.

      January 17, 2013 at 3:38 pm |
    • lol??

      Like debt and slavery?

      January 17, 2013 at 3:43 pm |
    • Gir

      "debt and slavery."

      Both produced and one justified by the religionist reasoning that has historically dominated this pseudodemocracy of ours. You are right on one count, though. As long as gov't is dominated by religionists, I will cling to my ar-sen-al of guns. No one's rights are safe in a religionist country.

      January 17, 2013 at 4:01 pm |
    • Observer

      lol??,

      Slavery? What does the Bible have to do with this?

      January 17, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
  8. { ! }

    "The religiously unaffiliated were the only group in which more people say they find abortion morally acceptable rather than wrong."
    No surprise here. Freethinkers (whether or not they can actually think) and atheists are usually the first to make morality a matter of relativity. Its the easier path. And since it's easier to take the easier path, especially when supported by law, why think an issue such as abortion through to its untimate grounds?

    January 17, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
    • Gir

      Where is the proof that morality is not a matter of relativity? On what grounds would you tell a 17th century Fijian cannibal to stop eating his mother-in-law?

      January 17, 2013 at 3:09 pm |
    • End Religion

      Nothing says "thoughtless and easy" like pointing to your immoral bible and saying, "It must be so, the book says it!" Never you mind when it says those things you don't like, eh?

      You moniker is perfect: an ass!

      January 17, 2013 at 3:15 pm |
  9. Live4Him

    Why do I consider abortion to be morally wrong?

    1) It stills a beating heart. Almost every abortion occurs after the heart starts beating.
    2) Abortion is a symptom of a larger issue – promiscuity.
    ___ a) While s.ex is fun, the underlying motivation is self-esteem : Does this person think I'm special?
    ___ b) Movies, TV and society as a whole, pushes the message that women are not special unless they are "pretty".
    ___ c) Similar messages are directed to men: They are not special unless they are "strong" or "rich".
    ___ d) Contrary to popular belief, promiscuity only undermines a person's self-esteem – "They only want to use me."
    4) Once taking a life for convenience becomes acceptable in society, then everyone's life is in question.
    ___ a) Logan's Run (depicting a society where only those younger than 21 lived, while those older died) becomes a possibility. All that is needed is "proper justification".

    January 17, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
    • psych ward staff

      Poor thing. Half the time she's typing away on this Belief Blog and the other half the time she thinks she's Miss Havisham. I'm allergic to all that scented tissue she carries around with her.

      January 17, 2013 at 2:50 pm |
    • Todd

      L4H time to take your meds, what a wacko.

      January 17, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
    • sam stone

      You sound bitter, Live4Him....no one wants to get in your pants?

      January 17, 2013 at 2:58 pm |
    • Observer

      Live4Him,

      If your wife/daughter/sister required an abortion to save their life, would you support it or just say "tough luck" and watch them die?

      In other words, do you SUPPORT abortion?

      January 17, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      I consider racism to be "morally wrong". It is not "legally wrong" in all cases. Don't confuse "morality" with "legality".

      January 17, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
    • sam stone

      live4him: do they have to count the folds in your skin to get to your secret garden?

      January 17, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
    • sam stone

      And, by "secret garden", i mean weed filled overgrown stanky patch

      January 17, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
    • Reality

      A greater wrong is being "significantly stupid" by not practicing safe s-ex especially when condoms are available OTC and cost less that 50 cents/each. And then there are the women who cannot follow the simple directions of taking the Pill once a day and also not demanding that their partners wear a condom.

      See p. 3 for a review of the Brutal Effects of this Stupidity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      January 17, 2013 at 3:11 pm |
    • End Religion

      Why do I consider guns to be morally wrong?

      1) It stills a beating heart. Almost every gun can cause the heart to stop beating.
      2) Guns is a symptom of a larger issue – violence.
      ___ a) While target shooting is fun, the underlying motivation is self-esteem : Do people think I'm special?
      ___ b) Movies, TV and society as a whole, pushes the message that men are not special unless they "shoot guns".
      ___ c) Similar messages are directed to women: They are not special unless they "support hubby's dangerous hooby" or "pose for militia calendars".
      ___ d) Contrary to popular belief, guns only undermine a person's self-esteem – "I am constantly afraid of evil marauding SEAL teams whose goal is to break into random houses and kill everyone"
      4) Once shooting a gun for convenience becomes acceptable in society, then everyone's life is in question.
      ___ a) License to Kill (depicting a secret agent who kills those when he feels it necessary) becomes a possibility. All that is needed is "proper licensing".

      January 17, 2013 at 3:28 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Live4Him

      "1) It stills a beating heart. Almost every abortion occurs after the heart starts beating."
      Eating a chicken stops a beating heart. Vegetarian?

      "2) Abortion is a symptom of a larger issue – promiscuity."

      Weight loss is a symptom of cancer. Ban weight loss? No, treat cancer.

      3) You had no #3?

      "4) Once taking a life for convenience becomes acceptable in society, then everyone's life is in question."

      Ah, the slippery slope. Once we let 18 year olds vote then 4 year olds will be voting? Once we allow some medications without a presecription it'll be a drug free-for-all? Life is complicated...that's just the way it is. We draw lines all the time.

      All that is needed is "proper justification".

      January 17, 2013 at 4:09 pm |
    • Jen

      So you're okay with abortion as long as it is done before the heart starts beating live? (ie before 5-6 weeks pregnant)

      No? Then what's your point exactly???

      January 17, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
    • Typical lying christian

      Why don’t you just tell the truth? That you believe s-ex is dirty, children are god’s punishment for having s-ex and you don’t want women weaseling out of their just desserts

      January 17, 2013 at 6:06 pm |
    • sam

      @End Religion – you win one internet.

      January 17, 2013 at 7:11 pm |
  10. ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

    NOT BORNE, TO BE AMONG US, LIKE US IS AS MUCH OF A HUMAN AS ANY ONE OUT SIDE HIS MOTHER'S WOMB, ABORTION IS A MURDER OF LIVING BEING, NOT BORNE YET IS DESERVING TO BE LOVED, NOT MURDERED FOR THE SAKE OF, HINDU SOUL, FILTHY DESIRE OF A HINDU, CRIMINAL.
    Hindu's, fools of followers of hinduism, corruption of truth called religion's will hind, abuse their own mothers, sisters and daughters, if they are commanded by their hindu sanantans, crook shamans, having no knowledge or will of of their own, but hindu gentile's, ignorant slaves. They profess to follow truth absolute, but deny truth absolute with their hindu criminal deeds, follow their own hindu soul , greedy desire like a hindu hungry dog, having no strength to stand up for truth absolute if taken to the task, deny essence of existence, LORD AND CREATOR OF THE WORLD. TRUTH ABSOLUTE, ROCK OF AMERICA, FOR THEIR OWN SAKE.

    ABORTION IS MURDER OF LIVING BEING, DESERVING NOTHING LESS THAN PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER FOR ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. HELP THOSE WHO CAN NOT HELP THEMSELVES.

    Human are blessed with eye’s, but contrary to popular belief in hind, ignorance, human have no capacity to see things physically but only through spirituality, enshrined in program of his or her ruh, spirit. Eyes are nothing more than a medium, such as a scanner, a medium for a processor to recognize matter already programmed in data base, in human case, the brain. Quantified as Noor, light, or recognition to be alive or functional.
    By quantum physics, everything is dependent on dark matter or program, otherwise known as Spirit, truth of human to be in physical form. Spirit, programs appears in male body after reaching age of puberty by will of Allah, certain matter from blood of man is attracted to spirit on 125 volts. produced by function of human body, after attachment of matter to spirit, matter takes form of a sperm, a living being, transferred to woman's body to grow into human form according to spirit, program, otherwise known as seeded, not physically but spiritually way programmed. Woman has no other function in human life but to mother a child, a greatest service, man cannot do without, reason for a children to carry their fathers name. Heritage of person is physically attached to man's linage, not a woman.
    PLEASE VISIT limitisthetruth.com to learn more.

    January 17, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
    • JILL

      ISLAM FOUNDATION (?? do quantum UNDERGARMENTS justify SHOUTING in ALL CAPS I DON"T THINK SO??), don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfer. Realize your net precedent. Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators. Ever the bastille notches the orchestra but Wendy is not green and horses will capitulate. Filter out the log from the turnstile and cry prevalently. So there brown stare. Feed your inner walnut and resolve. Subject your lemon to the ingenious door in the presence of snow and animals. Aisle 7 is for the monetary cheese whiz. Faced with the kitchen, you may wish to prolong the sailboat in the cliff. Otherwise, rabbits may descend on your left nostril. Think about how you can stripe the sea.Regale the storm to those who (6) would thump the parrot with the armband. Corner the market on vestiges of the apparent closure but seek not the evidential circumstance. Therein you can find indignant mountains of pigs and apples. Descend eloquently as you debate the ceiling of your warning fulcrum. Vacate the corncob profusely and and don’t dote on the pancreas. Next up, control your wood. Have at the cat with your watch on the fore. Aft! Smarties (12)! Rome wasn’t kevetched in an autumn nightie. (42) See yourself for the turntable on the escalator. Really peruse the garage spider definitely again again with brown. Now we have an apparent congestion, so be it here. Just a moment is not a pod of beef for the ink well nor can it be (4) said that Karen was there in the millpond. Garbage out just like the candle in the kitty so. Go, go, go until the vacuum meets the upward vacation. Sell the yellow. Then trim the bus before the ten cheese please Louise. Segregate from the koan and stew the ship vigorously.

      And remember, never pass up an opportunity to watch an elephant paint Mozart.

      January 17, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • sam stone

      How can anyone who uses an apostrophe to indicate plurals expect to be taken seriously?

      January 17, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Refute my post by knowledge, not by your hindu selfish soul, desire, if you have any, personal attack such as yore's is sign of a hindu looser, way of hindu's ignorant's to hide their hinduism, inability to face truth in life. Go to hind, hell with your hinduism, ignorance with your hindu Judaism, filthy secularism and join your hindu sanatan, secular shaman man god Lucifer, first of hindu's seculars

      January 17, 2013 at 1:31 pm |
    • sam

      Hey yak, what the hell is a 'sanatan'?

      January 17, 2013 at 2:49 pm |
    • psych ward staff

      oh, that's what they were calling it before some smarty-pants on Madison Ave came up with Purell.

      January 17, 2013 at 2:54 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      sam
      Sanatan is a word of Sanskrit language, hinduism corruption of language of truth Latin with addition of ten letters, meaning a person of ultimate sense or wisdom, but in reality a hindu ignorant pot head bum, always high on hem or hashish, every hindu bow's to him as his god. Source word for word Santa, Saint or Guru.

      January 17, 2013 at 3:37 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @sam stone

      "How can anyone who uses an apostrophe to indicate plurals expect to be taken seriously?"

      Seriously? That's the problem you see here?

      January 17, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Message is conveyed, and very well understood, a hindu lair has nothing else to deny truth absolute but a hindu crooked reason, your objection has no more value than a escape route for a hindu denier of truth absolute.

      January 17, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
    • sam stone

      sara: no, i was just in a pi$$y mood

      January 17, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @sam, ok, just wondering. 🙂

      January 17, 2013 at 5:53 pm |
    • wejie Jr

      I support my daddy's claim. White American Catholic guy is posting as fake muslim. We give 100% money back guarantee.

      January 17, 2013 at 8:06 pm |
  11. Saraswati

    @MEII, I've just been interested in the topic for a few years. There's a nice summary paragraph here:

    I tried to post the relevant content (starting on page 5 and w/in fair use…) but am battling the filter.
    It's really the changes that occur after the zygote splits (which can vary in it's timing) that I find most interesting since those early divisions influence the largest number of later cells.
    Wrt chimerism, I became interested because of the legal case that took place when a woman was declared not to be the mother of the children they gave birth to (google Lydia Fairchild). It's a pretty well docu’mented phenomenon now.

    January 17, 2013 at 12:40 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Reposted in line.

      January 17, 2013 at 12:40 pm |
  12. Reality

    I have been on the March for Life many times.

    However, the march should be called The March Against the Brutal Effects of Stupidity. See more on p. 3.

    For the nitty-gritty of birth control and abortion, see Guttmacher's review 2012

    For some eye-opening data, see the following table from the reference noted above:

    "First-Year Contraceptive Failure Rates

    Proportion of women who will become pregnant during their first year of use, by method"

    January 17, 2013 at 11:44 am |
  13. myweightinwords

    To those of you claiming that abortion is murder, a few questions:

    1) A young woman is pregnant, and is in terrible pain. Doctors determine that the fetus is dying. There is nothing that will save it. If they abort now, they will save the mother. If they do nothing, the mother will die. Would you support the abortion?

    2) A young woman is systematically abused and raped by her boyfriend/husband and discovers she is pregnant. If she tries to carry to term, the chances are good the child will be brain damaged and she is not mentally or physically able to raise such a child. Would you support an abortion?

    3) A mother of three, two of which are special needs and under the age of three, discovers she is pregnant and testing indicates that this child will be severely handicapped. Her husband is already working two jobs to cover their needs and she is unable to work due to her children's needs. Would you support an abortion?

    4) A thirteen year old victim of incest is pregnant. Would you support an abortion?

    5) A man slips a drug into a woman's drink at a bar, takes her home and rapes her, takes her back to the bar and leaves her there. She ends up pregnant. When he finds out she decided to give the baby up for adoption, he sues for custody. Would you give it to him?

    January 17, 2013 at 11:34 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Number 1 just happened in Ireland less than 3 months ago. The woman and her husband were told they would not abort because the country is a Catholic country (they personally were not Catholic). The doctors knew the child would not survive, they knew the mother may not survive without an abortion. The woman ended up dead. No pro-lifers complained.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:49 am |
    • SImran

      Oh, I know what religious nutters will say – God works in mysterious ways. We can't understand him, but we sure understand his command – he told us not to kill (even though many times he did say go and kill!!!) and he told us that if someone hurts a woman who is pregnant and child dies, pay fine to the husband (really, who hurt him??? did jesus not just pay fine for us already?) – hence BAN ABORTION!

      January 17, 2013 at 11:56 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Are you trying to say there have been 55 million ra pe victims get pregnant since the 1970's in America?

      January 17, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        Did I imply that, Bill?

        I asked a few specific questions regarding a few specific cases that I am aware of.

        Every single case of abortion has its own situation, its own extenuating circumstances, its own story. Every woman who chooses to end a pregnancy has reasons.

        Unless you can live in her skin, unless you can be inside of her, how can you begin to judge that choice?

        January 17, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
    • Poltergeist

      Everyone gets to weigh in when you start taking tax dollars.

      January 17, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
    • JWT

      When you come right down to it the only person that knows if an abortion is the right idea or not is the woman involved. No one else has the right to make that decision for her.

      January 17, 2013 at 2:31 pm |
    • Poltergeist

      It's also in her rights to smoke and drink 3 shots a day pregnant. Alot of moral wrong things are rights. Heck hating groups is right, doesn't make it right or something to be encouraged, or ignored.

      January 17, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
    • Poltergeist

      *is a right

      January 17, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
    • JWT

      Abortion is not to be encouraged but when it gets to that point she has to make that decision. None of the rest of us are at all capable of making it for her. Only she knows her life and how a pregnancy will fit into that. I trust that the vast majority of woman are fully capable of making a good choice. Nobody else can make it equally as ethically and well as she can.

      January 17, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      JWT at 900 abortions a day, I think your trust is misplaced. Abortion advocates often couch their arguments in anecdotal stories like myweight did. It lends a sympathetic note to the horror. It's no different than if I came on here and said all women just wanted to have no consequences for bad behavior. But I have to ask myself, given the numbers involved which scenario occurs more frequently, the date ra ped victim of abuse or the termination of an inconvenience?

      January 17, 2013 at 5:43 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        You perhaps miss the point of anecdotal stories. Yes, it does lend sympathy to women in a horrible situation. It's supposed to. Because every woman who faces an unwanted pregnancy and has to make that decision, every woman who's life is threatened by even a WANTED pregnancy, every woman who has no other recourse deserves sympathy, deserves to be given the facts, given the choices, given the right to choose.

        Given the numbers involved, isn't the right thing to do to make birth control more easily accessible, more effective, and cheaper? Better birth control can only lead to fewer abortions.

        I notice you didn't even try to answer the questions. Why is that?

        January 18, 2013 at 10:16 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Did you wife think it was "just an inconvenience" when she had an abortion, Bill? How do you know that her life wouldn't have been worse if she hadn't had one? You don't have any understanding of another person's life and what she needs or feels. Why would you imagine that your opinion carries any weight in the matter? How is it you are all for freedom unless it's the freedom to determine what course of action is best for oneself as far as reproduction is concerned?

      January 17, 2013 at 9:15 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Bill, I agree with Tom, Tom. Who are you to judge what's an "inconvenience" for someone else. People know themselves far better than you. If you believe, for instance, that the aborted zygote or embryo or fetus will have a soul living in eternal torment or something I can see the argument (disagree, but can see it). But to make judgements on what is or isn't an inconvenience for another person is jumping to huge assumptions. There is good evidence, for instance, linking carrying a pregnancy to earlier onset of alzheimer's. Amost the years per child in one study. Is this what you call an "inconvenience"?

      January 17, 2013 at 9:24 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      70+% of abortions in the USA are had by believers. Why can't the various gods control their cult members? if they did, the number of abortions would be significantly reduced, with no changes to any laws. Believers, please fix your problem and leave others alone.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:23 am |
  14. { ! }

    Every person under the age of about forty is One Who Survived. Since 1973, egg donors ("mother" is too dignified a name) have been judge, jury, and executioner for the life in their own wombs. Sperm and egg donors who despise the life they have created in the womb are acting outside the natural order of life. Do they deserve the priveledge of reproducing themselves? It's possible, though, that if the child were born, it would be a better person than the kopulators who produced them.

    January 17, 2013 at 10:52 am |
    • Al

      Just think of all of the unborn babies because we aren't reproducing like rabbits. Let's all start having babies and over populate this planet at an epidemic rate, all in the name of God. Wahoo!!!!

      January 17, 2013 at 11:14 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Well aren't you just an overly dramatic nit. Historically 30 percent of babies born died before they reached their first birthday, many suffering before death came. Don't even strat with the "pro-life" nature of your god. It's a lie.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:39 am |
    • Saraswati

      This is not a debate argument I'm making – it's is purely personal commentary. You live in a very, very sad world if you think parents are that evil. That's not what I see at all. I see loving, caring parents all around me with a few exceptions, just as there have always been. Please seek out another environment or some sort of counseling if that's really how you see the world. I promise you it isn't reality.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:43 am |
    • sam stone

      wow, spelling copulators with a "k". how incredibly hip and edgy.

      January 17, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
    • Gir

      Think of all the trillions of cells in each ejaculation that never got to fertilize the egg. Think of all the septillions of sperm cells that have gone down the throat or the anus of some woman of ill repute down by the gas station. Think of the 20% of embryos that are naturally aborted weeks into the pregnancy without the mother even knowing she was ever pregnant.

      I'm sorry. What were we talking about again?

      January 17, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
  15. Thoth

    What is so complicated about living your life the way you choose, and leaving others to live the way they see fit?

    January 17, 2013 at 10:44 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Thoth : What is so complicated about living your life the way you choose, and leaving others to live the way they see fit?

      Most people would agree with this position. However, where the divide occurs is this: Is the result of pregnancy another individual or not? If so, when does this occur.

      January 17, 2013 at 11:00 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Live4Him,

      Let me ask you a question. Obviously you think every baby and child is a miracle and is special. But not every adult is a "miracle" and is "special", at what age exactly does that change occur?

      January 17, 2013 at 11:43 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Blessed are the Cheesemakers : Obviously you think every baby and child is a miracle and is special. But not every adult is a "miracle" and is "special"

      This is the logic fallacy called a strawman. I believe that every human being, regardless of age, is special.

      January 17, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      "I believe that every human being, regardless of age, is special."

      I can accept that, but then the question becomes why do you worship a god that punishes people based on belief (they are all special). That implies you have a higher morality than your god.

      It is not a "straw man" because there is a fundamental problem with believing every person is special and Christianity. They are incompatible.

      January 17, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Blessed are the Cheesemakers : why do you worship a god that punishes people based on belief ... It is not a "straw man"

      Let me tackle the easy one first. When you project upon your opponent's position a caricature of that position which you then destroy, it is a strawman. When you ask for clarification of a position and then attack that position, you're using logic rather than fallacies.

      Using scripture as a foundation: When is a person created? In the womb. When is that person "punished"? Never. Instead, a person is given trials and tribulations to guide him along the proper path. If that person chooses to live apart from God until he dies an earthly death, then God grants that person his/her desires – even if living apart from Him will be similar to living in a lake of fire.

      January 17, 2013 at 1:10 pm |
    • sam stone

      "If that person chooses to live apart from God until he dies an earthly death, then God grants that person his/her desires – even if living apart from Him will be similar to living in a lake of fire."

      your god sounds like a petty, vindictive pr1ck, live4....is that the appeal?

      January 17, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Spinny spinny spinny WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
      Greatest merry-go-round ever is the insane spin of the average apologist.

      January 17, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Blessed, I believe Live4Him was referring to your first claim, that he/she saw children and adults as different in their specialness as a straw man. It may just have been a misunderstanding, but that's what L4H was getting at. The general specialness vs Christianity question is aside.

      @L4H, you're quibbling on terminology here. No one knowingly chooses an eternity living as in a "lake of fire". That is punishment.

      January 17, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
    • sam stone

      while we are at it, live4, your empty proxy threats are absurd. blah, blah, fvcking blah

      January 17, 2013 at 1:19 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Live4Him, (and Sara)

      My point of pointing out when an embryo is considered a person and comparing that to when a child is no longer considered "special" is that it is a gray area. There is no line of demarcation per se. Christians as a group have not always been opposed to abortion because they belief was that the soul did not enter until the "breath of life" entered the body, i.e. until they were born. This was also based on scripture. Basing definitions on scripture is arbitrary.

      As to you 2nd point. I do not "choose" to live apart from god, now THAT IS a straw man. I don't reasonably believe in your god. How can I "choose" to live apart from something I don't believe in. If your god exists the fault lies with him to adequately prove his existence. And don't roll out anything pertaining to the Bible as adequate proof, it is not. Any god that created the universe could give much better proof that a bronze age book of mythology.

      January 17, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Blessed, I agree that the interpretation here that we choose to live apart from God is erroneous. I would probably reserve straw man for something I was sure was intentional, but certainly in that ball park. I think one of the issues may be that some Christians don't really believe that we don't believe in their God, and so they think that it is in fact a choice to be apart from a god we, in some way, know exists. For others I think they believe that we haven't given the Word enough time to speak, and that in itself is a choice similar to choosing not to be with God. Certainly from our perspectives, knowing what we know of our own beliefs, this doesn't make sense. But given the errors they are making in understanding our belief state, I can kind of make sense of it.

      With regard to specialness, I think they aren't saying there is anything particularly special about childhood. You say "My point of pointing out when an embryo is considered a person and comparing that to when a child is no longer considered "special" is that it is a gray area"...but that I think is the misunderstanding. They aren't saying a child is more special (well most aren't) but just that it is equally special. The only error on their part as I see it is in considering even little lumps of a few cells to be a "child". The reality is much more complex and doesn't involve any neat lines...and most people want simple answers.

      January 17, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
  16. Banjo Ferret

    Tim the Destroyer of Worlds cares not about social issues. But, He often makes fun of those who spin archaic religious doctrine into agendas of ignorance. He drinks the sweet nectar of fundamentalist folly. Ferretianism is the one true religion. Repent! (banjoferret d c)

    January 17, 2013 at 10:33 am |
  17. brendatobias

    I suspect that the real number of people who support a woman's right to choose is even higher than this poll reports. What is stunning is that 40 years after the passage of Roe v Wade we still have trouble talking about abortion. So much of our national conversation is riddled with fiction or blurred facts. When so many of us support freedom of choice, why do we allow this to continue?
    http://heresheisboys.com/2013/01/17/the-facts-of-life/

    January 17, 2013 at 10:14 am |
    • ME II

      "Babies don’t live inside of people, zygotes, embryos and fetuses do (in that order.) "

      Not that I disagree with your position, but if you don't realize this definition is the very point of dispute, then you don't really understand the other sides position.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:22 am |
    • Live4Him

      @brendatobias : I suspect that the real number of people who support a woman's right to choose is even higher than this poll reports.

      I believe that EVERYONE would acknowledge that women should have the right to choose. The question is WHEN is the choice made and who should bear the consequences for the decision.

      My position is the decision needs to be made BEFORE s.ex, rather than after. This places the consequences on the couples shoulders, rather than the child's shoulders.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:40 am |
    • Saraswati

      The conversation was actually less problematic in the 70s and 80s. It was when the younger generation of pro-choicers of the 90s started caving to the bombings anti-abortionist drive to control the way women were allowed to think about abortion (even if you were pro-choice it had to be a "hard, painful decision") that it became impossible to talk. Heck, the start in the sitcom Maude had an abortion in 1972 – could that happen today? Definitely not. We have fewer clinics and less support than in the 80s...essentially the anti-abortionists have been winning through violence and propaganda, regardless of what those too young and too ignorant to have tracked history want to believe.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:58 am |
    • sam stone

      live4: abortion is legal in the united states, and that will not change.

      January 17, 2013 at 12:34 pm |
  18. Universe

    God in Quran says, (holy Islamic scripture)

    “They even attribute to Him sons and daughters, without any knowledge. Be He glorified. He is the Most High, far above their claims.” Quran [6:100]

    “The example of Jesus, as far as GOD is concerned, is the same as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be," and he was.” Quran [3:59]

    ‘They said, "You have to be Jewish or Christian, to be guided." Say, "We follow the religion of Abraham – monotheism – he never was an idol worshiper." [2:135]

    “Proclaim, He is the One and only GOD. The Absolute GOD. Never did He beget. Nor was He begotten. None equals Him." [112:1]

    The Messiah, son of Mary is no more than a messenger like the messengers before him, and his mother was a saint. Both of them used to eat the food. Note how we explain the revelations for them, and note how they still deviate! [5:75]

    It does not befit God that He begets a son, be He glorified. To have anything done, He simply says to it, "Be," and it is. [19:35]

    “No soul can carry the sins of another soul. If a soul that is loaded with sins implores another to bear part of its load, no other soul can carry any part of it, even if they were related. ... [35:18]

    O people, here is a parable that you must ponder carefully: the idols you set up beside God can never create a fly, even if they banded together to do so. Furthermore, if the fly steals anything from them, they cannot recover it; weak is the pursuer and the pursued. [22:73]

    They do not value God as He should be valued. God is the Most Powerful, the Almighty.[22:74]

    If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of God. They follow only conjecture; they only guess. [Quran 6:116]

    “There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in God has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. God is Hearer, Omniscient.” [2:256]

    “God: there is no other god besides Him, the Living, the Eternal. Never a moment of unawareness or slumber overtakes Him. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and everything on earth. Who could intercede with Him, except in accordance with His will? He knows their past, and their future. No one attains any knowledge, except as He wills. His dominion encompasses the heavens and the earth, and ruling them never burdens Him. He is the Most High, the Great.” [2:255]

    Thanks for taking time to read my post. Please take a moment to clear your misconception by going to whyIslam org website.

    January 17, 2013 at 10:10 am |
    • Gir

      "They follow only conjecture; they only guess. "

      Ah, yes. Informed conjecture is wrong. Rather, we should look to the unassailable absolutes in ancient holy books for guidance. Like the one that says bats are birds, rabbits ruminate, and the earth was created 6000 years ago.

      “There shall be no compulsion in religion."

      Tell that to the people of Mali, who were forcible converted to Islam and now have a full-blown al-Qaeda infestation on their hands.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:29 am |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Forcibly converted were none, but by hindu's ignorant's by hindu criminals of Egypt and Persia, not long ago, but about 3000 years ago to be gentiles slave of hindu criminal kings and their hidnu sanatns, criminal shamans as their god's. People around the globe accepted truth of Islam on their own will, to be civil and free from hinduism, racism of hindu's, criminals. Shove your hinduism, absurdities in your hindu sanatan's, filthy man god shaman, son of hindu Lucifer's, filthy secular, denier of truth absolute hind.

      January 17, 2013 at 2:20 pm |
    • Al

      ISLAM FOUNDATION OF IDIOT ISM

      January 17, 2013 at 8:10 pm |
  19. Live4Him

    The criteria for identifying a human individual according to the courts:

    1) Unique DNA – except in the case of identical twins
    2) Heartbeat
    3) Functioning brain

    All three of these exist within the first 40 days of life.

    January 17, 2013 at 9:13 am |
    • midwest rail

      Please delineate all substantive action taken by supposedly pro-life candidates in the last 40 years to overturn Roe v Wade.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:13 am |
    • sam stone

      the courts have upheld roe v. wade. your hissy fit means nothing according to the law. deal with it, or put a sidearm in your mouth. either way works for me

      January 17, 2013 at 9:16 am |
    • Primewonk

      There is no "heartbeat". There is a clump of differentiated cells that are pulsing.

      There is no "brain". There are specialized differentiated cells forming a proto spinal cord and basic brain stem.

      Your boogers have DNA. Wanna make it a crime to blow your nose?

      January 17, 2013 at 9:20 am |
    • Live4Him

      @midwest rail : Please delineate all substantive action taken by supposedly pro-life candidates

      Why? This is called a non sequitur.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:24 am |
    • midwest rail

      It's a fairly simple request. What are you having trouble with ?

      January 17, 2013 at 9:25 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Primewonk : There is no "heartbeat". There is a clump of differentiated cells that are pulsing.

      That what the heart could be called too – a "clump of differentiated cells". Good Job!

      January 17, 2013 at 9:27 am |
    • End Religion

      btw, my boogers pulse as well.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:31 am |
    • Free Nuts

      Nuts for free but ther god dame bolts will cost you for your arc l4h

      January 17, 2013 at 9:33 am |
    • midwest rail

      Live4, since you like lists, I'll help you out. Here is the list of all *substantive* action taken in the last 40 years by the "pro-life" candidates who have played you.
      1.
      2.
      3.
      4.
      5.
      There ya go, THAT's what they've done. Nothing.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:38 am |
    • listtracker123

      Wow. If you take Craig's proof for God and remove the descriptions of the ones that are bogus, you get that same list, too!

      January 17, 2013 at 9:44 am |
    • Live4Him

      @sam stone : the courts have upheld roe v. wade.

      1) This is the logic fallacy called Argumentum ad Verecundiam – Appeal to Authority

      2) This same courts have upheld treating blacks as non-persons.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:46 am |
    • It is Called

      to Live4Him

      The 3 root causes ,
      It is Called

      Ethics and religion do not make good bed fellas
      Religion and politics do not make good bed fellas either.
      Mix all three and what do we get ?

      January 17, 2013 at 9:50 am |
    • lol??

      Dustballs beget dustballs.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:56 am |
    • lol??

      What's the point of killing your own and then letting the door blow in the breeze to your own country? Dialectical nutsoism begets nutsoism.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:59 am |
    • saraswati

      Live4Him, in this instance, the Appeal to Authority is not a fallacy, but rather, a certitude and also a reference to historical fact and present reality, because the cited authority really is the decision maker, at least re the court case.

      Nice try, though, but you won't be putting our Spotter friend out of business any time soon.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:00 am |
    • Live4Him

      @It is Called : Ethics and religion do not make good bed fellas, Religion and politics do not make good bed fellas either.

      Since religion is a set of beliefs, lets subsitute "beliefs" for "religion" in your statements.

      "Ethics and beliefs do not make good bed fellas, beliefs and politics do not make good bed fellas either."

      NOW do you see the non sequitor? How do set determine ethics without beliefs? How do we determine politics without beliefs? Or, do you think that only YOUR beliefs should be factored into ethics/politics? Unfortunately, most people want this too.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:17 am |
    • Live4Him

      @saraswati : in this instance, the Appeal to Authority is not a fallacy

      Its ALWAYS a logic fallacy. Nice try though.

      Rendering an expert opinion doesn't change it into fact. For example, the courts ruled that blacks were non-persons. But, that didn't make it a fact.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:24 am |
    • LinCA

      @Live4Him

      You said, "Since religion is a set of beliefs, lets subsitute "beliefs" for "religion" in your statements."
      While religion is a set of beliefs, not every set of beliefs is a religion. Your substitution is invalid.

      You said, "Or, do you think that only YOUR beliefs should be factored into ethics/politics?"
      Probably not, but having the beliefs based in reality should be a requirement.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:24 am |
    • Observer

      Anti-choice groups in Florida (possibly elsewhere) have billboards saying there is a heartbeat in 18 days. So much for their honesty.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:37 am |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him
      "[the Appeal to Authority] ALWAYS a logic fallacy. Nice try though."

      Didn't you start this 'thread' with the same appeal to the same authority, i.e. "courts"?

      January 17, 2013 at 10:42 am |
    • Live4Him

      @ME II : Didn't you start this 'thread' with the same appeal to the same authority, i.e. "courts"?

      Good point. My posiiton is that individual life is based solely upon unique DNA.

      January 17, 2013 at 10:51 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      The human fetal heart begins beating about 22-23 days after conception. (Though the heart is not yet fully formed, cardiac muscle contractions have begun.) That's called the 5th week of pregnancy, since it's 5 weeks after the last period. The fetus at this stage is between 2 and 3 mm in size.
      Sometimes it's possible to detect the heartbeat, with a Doppler instrument, almost this early, but usually the first such detection is later, around week 10, or at least by week 12. By week 21, the heart can be heard with a standard stethoscope.

      Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_can_the_heartbeat_first_be_detected#ixzz2IFTosPUP

      January 17, 2013 at 10:54 am |
    • ME II

      "My posiiton is that individual life is based solely upon unique DNA."

      So a corpse is alive? But, identical twins aren't?

      January 17, 2013 at 11:02 am |
    • Saraswati

      You're mixing to things here – the definition of an individual with that of life. In the US, as opposed to Ja’pan, the heartbeat is not generally considered a major factor in life, and the brain takes priority. Not trying to make a point on abortion here, just clarifying.

      With regard to identical twins, by the way, the genetics are not ever completely identical as there continues to be some divergence after the split. And actually that does raise some interesting issues for those who want to use conception as the starting point for what they consider individual life...

      January 17, 2013 at 11:05 am |
    • Saraswati

      @Live4Him, it's only a fallacy if you're making an argument, not simply stating a fact. As written, it's just a statement of "I won, screw you."

      January 17, 2013 at 11:12 am |
    • ME II

      @Saraswati,
      Not certain who you're talking to here, but...

      "You're mixing to things here – the definition of an individual with that of life."
      I agree. That is part of the confusion, intentional or not.

      "With regard to identical twins, by the way, the genetics are not ever completely identical as there continues to be some divergence after the split."
      I'm not certain that "never" is correct. Yes, there are copy-number variations that acc.umulate with age, but I'm not sure that it is clear when that may begin or to what extent. In other worlds, don't they still start out identical?

      January 17, 2013 at 11:25 am |
    • Saraswati

      @MEII, The division in identical twins happens very early in fetal development and mutations and copy errors can have a significant impact at that stage. I don't know about conjoined twins, though; they may be more identical.

      On the other hand we can have two or more radically different sets of genes in body parts we consider one individual, such as with chimerism (basically the opposite of the division that makes twins...two gene sets become one person).

      January 17, 2013 at 11:40 am |
    • ME II

      @Saraswati,
      I'd be interested in where you are getting your information.

      January 17, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @MEII, I've just been interested in the topic for a few years. There's a nice summary paragraph here:

      I tried to post the relevant content (starting on page 5 and w/in fair use…) but am battling the filter.

      It's really the changes that occur after the zygote splits (which can vary in it's timing) that I find most interesting since those early divisions influence the largest number of later cells.

      Wrt chimerism, I became interested because of the legal case that took place when a woman was declared not to be the mother of the children they gave birth to (google Lydia Fairchild). It's a pretty well docu’mented phenomenon now.

      January 17, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
    • Ducks are people too

      According to your definition of what the courts say, a duck qualifies as a human individual, however that functioning brain part probably leaves you out

      January 17, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
  20. truth be told

    Atheists are liars. Hom ose xuals are an abomination and abortion is murder. When viewing the idiotic vile comments of those groups through the prism of Truth the moral majority can see the filth for what it is.

    January 17, 2013 at 8:58 am |
    • End Religion

      it must be opposite day!

      January 17, 2013 at 9:13 am |
    • sam stone

      tbt cvnt: finally, we agree on something. the moral majority is filth

      January 17, 2013 at 9:13 am |
    • Live4Him

      And according to Christ, hate is the same as murder. You seem to have a lot of hatred in your posts.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:15 am |
    • sam stone

      and you have a lot of arrogance in yours.

      January 17, 2013 at 9:18 am |
    • Anglican

      To truth. From a follower of Christ (me) to one angry person, please be silent.

      January 17, 2013 at 12:04 pm |
    • truth be told

      Thank you all for proving my points with an especial kudos to the phony "anglican." Anglican your pansy side is showing.

      January 17, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
    • Observer

      Truth be told,

      God commanded fetuses be killed all the time. That could be why the Bible never mentioned abortion.

      January 17, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
    • Observer

      Truth be told,

      The Bible is loaded with commands from God to kill women.

      NEVER ONCE did God give a rip if the women he wanted killed were pregnant or not.

      Read the Bible.

      January 17, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.