I'm not sure what you mean by “medical procedures” that potentially could be outlawed after abortion in your “slippery slope” scenario. Please explain.

Your other points:

Values — People legislate them all the time. Reference hate crime bills, for example. A Christian point of view is one among many that in a democracy should be represented. Don't forget that President Obama's commitment to environmental issues – according to his own admission – stems from his Christian faith. Good for him. Now, I'd like to see him extend that to protecting the unborn, another clear inference of faith.

“Abortion should be legal but rare and a woman's body is her own.” The “legal but rare” talking point is just that – a nice slogan leftover from former President Clinton. The question is: How do we make them rare? I brought up some common ground, i.e. focus on contraception, but you seem uninterested in pursuing that common ground. As long as there's money to be made abortions, people will fight any further restrictions tooth-and-nail. Follow the money…

If the Jehovah's Witnesses convince enough people of the rightness of their point-of-view, using our democratic processes, more power to them.

When should abortion be allowed? Kathy has told a heart-breaking personal story of the circumstances of her abortion. I believe there needs to be enough flexibility in the law to allow for such exceptional cases. Many think that rape and incest would qualify. Of course, most abortions done are simply because a child is unwanted, either by the would-be father or the would-be mother, or both, or parents of a young girl who bring pressure to bear, etc. As a culture, we've become so hyper-individualistic that life has been cheapened, and abortion has become birth control. Everyone loses — we lose our soul as a nation bit-by-bit because we make no room for the unwanted, and of course, the unborn child is snuffed out. President Bush was right: We need a culture of life, and little-by-little, we're heading in that direction. Look for Roe v Wade to be overturned, and this issue to go back to the states, where it should have stayed all along.

When you say “no to abortion in almost all circumstances”, what are those circumstances that are acceptable to you? Who gets to decide which circumstances are acceptable? You? Someone's church? You might even bring God into it but then…who's God…whose religion? Why should a conservative Christian's moral values be dictated onto others under the law, particularly since there is no state religion in this country and not everyone may subscribe to those beliefs (or even not believe in God at all)?

Personally, I believe that abortion should be legal but rare and that a woman's body is her own. I wouldn't dream of trying to dictate to you a medical procedure that you couldn't receive, why on earth would you want to dictate as such to me? What if someone (or many someones) who's beliefs follow the Jehovah's Witness' religion and they tried to dictate to you that you couldn't receive an organ transplant just because they believed it to be wrong? Would you stand for that? Somehow, I don't think so.

What really gets my goat is when a man seems to think that women look at abortion the same way that they look at getting a bikini wax or maybe even cosmetic surgery. Women who decide to get an abortion are normally not cavalier about it and know that they have to live with their decision for the rest of their lives. Again, I am no fan of elective abortions as a form of birth control (and I doubt that's all that common anymore) but once it's codified into law that a woman cannot get one kind of medical procedure, how long before there are any other number of medical procedures she can't have? Does “slippery slope” come to mind?

As a side note…isn't if funny that the most vocal opponents to abortion also tend to be anti-birth control (see the Catholic Church)? It seems to me that with proper birth control and sex education, elective abortions for non-medical reasons become unnecessary.

And just because a fetus's voice can't be heard doesn't mean you know what it would say if it had a voice. The fetus doesn't have a choice, about anything. Don't fool yourself that you are the fetus, making the fetus's choice. You are not. You are a separate person, the fetus doesn't have a choice and doesn't have the wish for a choice and doesn't have the capacity for a choice. Choice is a meaningless concept for a fetus. If a fetus did have a choice, maybe it would choose to return to the spirit world and incarnate into a healthier body in a kinder world — one where the needs of babies were prioritized after birth as well as before; or one where there wasn't a war going on that would blow up the baby's body six months or a year or two years after her birth. Do you think if a fetus had a choice, it would choose to be born in Iraq or Afghanistan? Or Somalia or Sudan? A fetus has no choice. And those living beings who do have a choice are told they mustn't use it.

Thanks for keeping me honest.

What I was suggesting was not based on a word-by-word reading of your post. Instead, I looked at the thread, saw that you and Kathy were off to the left on the issue, and said as much. Arguably, Rep. Stupak is off to the right. This site is the Moderate Voice. It seemed like the place to point that out. And yes, I'm probably right-of-center on the abortion issue. That's no surprise to those who have read my frequent posts here on the matter. But I believe there's some evidence to show that within 10 years, my position will no longer be “right-of-center” but center, as the American public is becoming more conservative on the issue. As that happens, the angst for those who are out of that mainstream is likely to increase.

I don't know how the first as any relationship to the public funding of abortion argument, but I am behind you 100% in eliminating the public funding of any Viagra. It has bent the cost curve for escorts in the wrong direction.

Democracy rarely satisfies everyone – and I don't expect it to. So whether I am or am not satisfied in regard to any one element is really irrelevant.

Now – if you're saying that you feel badly for me that some element I care about isn't coming out the way I want it, well, thank you. But otherwise, really – don't cry for me, anyone. Now that I'm a city council member, believe me, I'm well aware of how nearly impossibly it is to satisfy people – but then being the parent of two teens is a pretty good hands on lesson in that too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

As to abortion not being health care, try telling that to the couple that finds out that if the woman carries her baby with a serious birth defect to term that the baby will be born dead and she still gets to go through all the risks involved with childbirth. While I'm no fan of elective abortions to rid the consequences of doing something stupid, it is reality that there are some cases where abortion is necessary on some level.

Regardless, the government has no business telling a woman what she can or can't do with her own body. Tell you what, let's have the government dictate that a man must get a vasectomy after a certain age or not have his Viagra prescription subsidized but he has to pay full retail for it on his prescription drug plan. Then you can complain about abortion all you like.

You will have to forgive me for not feeling any respect for Sam Brownback, therefore — I mean, given that I am a woman, and that my daughter is a woman.

I forgive you Kathy, although I don't agree with you that a man can't be respected for standing up for his belief that abortion is baby killing, and that baby killing is morally wrong. Men can love children too you know.

The bill does not fund medical coverage for abortion, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Also this:
http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=725

Under Reid’s “manager’s amendment,” there is no prohibition on abortion coverage in federally subsidized plans participating in the Exchange. Instead the amendment includes layers of accounting gimmicks that demand that plans participating in the Exchange or the new government-run plan that will be managed by the Office of Personnel Management must establish “allocation accounts” when elective abortion is a covered benefit (p. 41). Everyone enrolled in these plans must pay a monthly abortion premium (p. 41, lines 5-8), and these funds will be used to pay for the elective abortion services. The Reid amendment directs insurance companies to assess the cost of elective abortion coverage (p. 43), and charge a minimum of $1 per enrollee per month (p. 43, lines 20-22).

In short, the Reid bill continues to defy the will of the American people and contradict longstanding federal policy by providing federal subsidies to private health plans that cover elective abortions. The new language does include a “state opt-out” provision if a state passes a law to prohibit insurance coverage of abortion, but it’s a sham because it does nothing to prevent one state’s tax dollars from paying for elective abortions in other states.

They certainly need to tighten it up so that States that decide not to allow this not have their taxpayer money used to fund it. The Premiums should only be paid by those electing for such coverage. The bi partisan approved Stupak Amendment offered such protections.

I cannot, because his convictions lead him to believe that women do not have health concerns — or at least none that he needs to be concerned with. The constant repetition by him and others who share his “convictions” about how beautiful and valuable human life is, *all* human life, *all* human life (repeat this ten times with tears in your eyes and let your voice shake just a little), obviously do not consider a woman to have a life or to be a human life. You may deny this, but there is no other logical conclusion to take from the statement, “Abortion is not health care. It has no place in a health care bill.”

You will have to forgive me for not feeling any respect for Sam Brownback, therefore — I mean, given that I am a woman, and that my daughter is a woman.