Very insightful, Mr Miller. Keep up the good work.

At the time that Barak Obama was campaigning for President and promising better, more cost effective health care, I flippantly said that he could achieve it by aborting babies to prevent expensive pregnancies (and all pregnancy is expensive), and by euthanizing the aging and the handicapped, who require a lot of medical care, like the Schiavo case. I didn't think that was his actual plan, but it seems to be looking more an more like it, at least on one end. May God have mercy on his soul! Thank you for bringing this to the light.

All this talk of liberals supposedly wanting as many abortions to happen because of some sinister "eugenics" plot is pure poppycock. This is nothing but conspiracy theories at their looniest. On the contrary, Obama wants to to decrease abortions as much as possible, and to provide more help to poor pregnant women so they could provide decent food,shelter,education and medical care for their children, born or unborn and eliminate the need for abortions as much as possible, unlike conservatives, who delude themselves into thinking that the government can stop abortion merely by outlawing it, which would only INCREASE the number of abortions, and cause many poor pregnant women to die from botched illegal abortions or be seriously harmed by them. It's conservatives, not liberals, who are responsible for the REAL culture of death. This story is pure garbage. There's not a shred of truth to it. Don't believe it.

Gee, how did I know you'd weigh in - you must have an integrated "abortion alert" buzzer in your brain. Don't put words in our mouths - we're standing for a fundamental principle that all life is worthy of protection under the law. It's that simple. There is no justification in a moral society for taking an innocent human life. I don't know why you continue to harp on all the peripheral issues. You either believe that all life is worthy of protection or you don't. If you do, you find ways to protect life instead of making excuses and taking the path of least resistance. If you don't, then at least be honest and admit it. The fact is you think some lives are worthy of protection and others are not, because they're not fully developed, or they're destined for a horrible future, or whatever your reasons for your beliefs. You're entitled to your beliefs; just don't position your argument as somehow morally superior. You won't even acknowledge the spoken and written words of the abortion advocates themselves about limiting the number of undesirables. The liberal resistance to ANY reasonable restriction on abortion speaks louder than words. The school nurse needs my permission to give my daughter an aspirin, but could by law keep me in the dark if she should seek an abortion, which is surgery. Us self-centered baby boomers are aging and going away eventually, thank God. The younger generation is more protective of life than we are by all accounts.

Whether "life is worthy of protection" or not is immaterial and irrelevant. This won't stop women from seeking and obtaining abortions. You conservatives continue to delude yourselves into thinking that if we just make abortion illegal this problem will go away. Well it won't. And furthermore, if this happens and the government also greatly reduces or eliminates programs to help the poor it will only drive the abortion rate way up. Please get with reality. Like all pro-choicers, I don't LIKE abortion or WANT them to happen. I am just realistic enough to realize that you can't stop it period and that what conservatives advocate for this vexed issue would be catastrophic for America.

I'm not an idiot - I don't expect that abortions will end because they're banned. People still kill each other despite the fact it's illegal. No one's talking about repealing murder laws, though. You always dismiss that statement, but the logic you're applying is the same. Your "reality" is to dismiss ANY approach or option that doesn't include government or adherence to a principle over the soft tyranny of pragmatism that permits life to be taken under certain circumstances, none of which involve the consent of the one being killed. I live in a reality where there are options that allow the mother and the child to live, and the mother to receive the care and counseling she needs to bring her baby into the world and ensure he or she has a life going forward with a family that wants and loves them. Do you know many women who have had abortions? Do you know what they're going through as a result of their decision? I know that reality, and it's sad and entirely preventable, but they were never given the option. You sit there on your throne in judgment of us for supposedly being cruel and uncaring, and you don't have a clue about any of us. It's condescension founded in ignorance of what many of us actually believe or practice. We evil conservatives are feeding the hungry in my community; we're providing shelter for homeless people. We're helping teen mothers place their babies in loving homes and helping them with school and work so they can have lives. Don't you dare sit there in judgment of me or others like me because we refuse to wait for government to be our savior, or selfishness to be our god. We believe that others come first, and we do what government hasn't done in spite of trillions of dollars being spent - showing real, on the ground, up close and personal care for hurting people. Your assumptions to the contrary are demeaning and just plain wrong.

Superhorn: As always, thank you for sharing your thoughts and opinions. With all due respect, Sir, may I ask, do you have any children of your own? And if so, do you believe their life (or lives) are precious? Would you not do everything in your power to protect them from any pain or harm? If you answered yes, then my next questions to you are: When did you start feeling this way? Was it only the second after they were born or was it whilst they were in the womb? When did your protective instincts kick-in?

No, I don't have any children of my own. But your questions are loaded.Of course I wouldn't want my children to be harmed if I had any. But abortion is something completely different. The vast majority are done very early in pregnancy and only a tiny fraction are late term,and invariably for medical reasons. Women don't just decde they don't want to have a baby in the 9th month,or even the 8th. But making abortion illegal does nothing but make it more dangerous. It's not a solution to the abortion problem. But conservatives like you guys here at Regular folks united want to have it both ways. You want all pregnant women to give birth whether or not they have the means to provide decent care for those children or whether a pregnancy would kill or permanently disable them, and you don't want the government to provide help for them, foolishly assuming that private charities can provide everything they need, which is absolutely not the case. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for charities. But it's absolutely impossible for them to provide for all poor families or peoplke in need in general. If we are to do something about the dilemma of abortion, we must do much,much more to provide for poor families. Abortion isn't pretty.It's a very unpleasant and distateful thing to happen. But the alternative, trying to force women to bear children no matter what their adverse circumstances, is infinitely worse.

Surperhorn, you say my "questions are loaded"--no, I'm simply trying to learn more about your feelings so as to gain a better understanding of why you are pro-abortion. This will only enhance our discussions, what with the members here getting to know you a bit better. Now, you go on to say"conservatives.....want all pregnant women to give birth whether or not they have the means to provide decent care"---What is your financial benchmark in making your determination whether a someone has the proper means to care for a child? Again, as before, all I ask is for you to offer specifics. What amount of money, shares, bonds, and other financial derivatives equate to, as you say, "having the means"? Surely you must a figure in mind. From there, you go on to say " we must do much, much more to provide for poor families". ---Sounds very nice, indeed; but again, I will ask for you to be specific. How do you define poor? By what financial standard measurement is someone poor, in your opinion, of course? And what if a poor person rejects all that you want "we/us" to provide for them. ? Furthermore, I would ask you, with all due respect, what is it exactly you want "us" to provide for the poor that you are obviously so passionate about? Please be specific, as I am always willing to learn.

The fact remains that many women just don't have the means to take decent care of their children. Having more would place a terrible financial burden on them. No,not all women who have abortions are poor, but a very substantial number of them who do are. Heck, we don't even do enough in America to provide for poor kids who HAVE been born. The more poor unwanted children come into the world, the more poverty,unemployment and crime there is. It's a fact; the more poverty there is in a country, the more abortions. The less poverty, the fewer abortions. Look at Europe; this is the part of the world with the world's LOWEST abortion rate.

superhorn, again, I kindly ask for you to offer specifics when defining "poor". By what standard do you measure one being"poor". You say "..in America doesn't have enough to provide for poor kids who have been born". What specifically should America provide these "poor kids" of which you speak? Again, please be specific. And can you also be specific in highlighting what "poor kids" in America are already being provided? From there, I would ask, when is it enough? What is the annual dollar amount America should provide to all of the poor kids? Then I would like to know when does it end? When the poor children turn a certain age? 18, 21, perhaps 25? Should America provide these rations to "poor kids" in spite of the parents improved economic situation? What would that benchmark be? Again, superhorn, please be specific as you may indeed be onto something here with your economic school of thought. If you can offer specifics, then perhaps I, and all the other folks here, could learn and benefit from what you have to offer. I am certainly willing to learn. But I will require you to be specific.

Oh, and one other question for you superhorn regarding your statement " The more poor unwanted children come into the world, the more poverty,unemployment and crime there is": Precisely or even approximately if you like, what number or percentage of total births or population of children should be permitted to be born into a family/single mother living below the poverty line? Please be specific as surely you've thought this through and have at least an approximate number in mind. This is your opportunity to convince folks to see things your way. All you have to do is be specific.

Hi Superhorn! I have a couple of questions for you to answer. If President Obama is truly interested in reducing abortions, why did he sign an executive order within hours of becoming president that reversed a stance that we wouldn't fund abortions outside of our borders? That seems to be inconsistent with his claims of wanting to reduce abortion, doesn't it? Why is it that when a couple discover that the woman is pregnant, they announce that they are "having a baby" and when a woman discovers that she is experiencing an unintended pregnancy, that "baby" suddenly becomes a "fetus", thus somehow losing its humanity? If you pluck a rose, does it suddenly become a weed because it's death is imminent? Does it lose it's value because it has been removed from the environment that nurtures it's bloom? Or does a rose become a weed because it is found growing wild in an abandoned parking lot? I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Obama has also reversed the stupid policies of the Bush administration which denied help to poor countries unless they denied women the right to choose abortions and provide them with contraceptives. The result? Many,many,many women in poor countries died because of botched illegal abortions which could have been prevented by the availability of contraceptives,and the countries were denied help to decrease general poverty. The Obama administration's policies could prevent many abortions in America and around the world. But the foolish policies of "pro-life"(really anti-choice) conservative presidents have merely increased the number of abortions and human misery all over the world. This just shows you how counterproductive "Pro-life" policies are.

Interesting generalities superhorn. However, "facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence". Give me facts and supporting evidence of women dying because of the Mexico City policy that President Regean (not President Bush) established. I am sure you have those facts at your fingertips. I only ask for proof to back up your statement. Here is another stubborn fact: The Mexico City policy stated that the United States would not provide funding to international family planning organizations that provided aboritons services. It had nothing to do with aid directly to nations. In other words, Planned Parenthood could not get funding from the government to set up clinics in foreign countries. My source is ABC news and the Washington Post.

Stubborn fact #2: Contraceptives are far less effective in preventing STIs/STDs than they are in preventing pregnancy. The last statistics I read, which took place less than ten years ago, is that condoms are merely 87% effective in preventing HIV and there was no study demonstrating their effectiveness against transmission other STIs. And of course, the pill is totally ineffective in preventing any STIs. And organizations like Planned Parenthood also distribute pamphlets promoting alternatives to intercourse which totally circumvent the "safety" of condoms. So, Superhorn, what do you think is worse for a woman's health--pregnancy or STIs? (BTW, did you read that 25% of girls in the U.S. from 14 to 19 years old have STIs?) My quote about facts comes from John Adams.