Although you are correct, no one has the right to demand anything of you and you don’t have to listen to others. Just if you are pregnant and quiet, you will hear your baby say, “I love you mommy”.

As far as her contention that religious beliefs are the main fuel in the attitudinal prohibition of abortion … what are we to make of her belief that abortion is a “FUNDAMENTAL” right to a woman’s self-determination. That value system has to be birthed from somewhere. It wasn’t created “ex nihilo” (out of nothing). It is highly close kin to a secular humanist value system. Thus, she may well be quite hypocritical in blaming people for opposing abortion on religious-philosophical grounds … while she herself is supporting it as “FUNDAMENTAL” on secular-humanist-philosophical grounds. Certainly she is not saying that religious beliefs are subjective, while secular humanist beliefs are objective is she?

Lastly, allow me to make a point about point 2. I touched on it earlier, but it deserves more attention. She makes the point that the similarity of the earliest of unborn babies is solely in the genes … and not in the looks. My question is are we going to dissolve into determining human status based solely on looks? Philosophically this is quite a dangerous game to play. Jim Crow laws enshrined in the American legal system that people of color were less human than white people. The Australian Aborigines in yesteryear … and some would argue still … look different that white Australians and have been treated horribly. They were even deemed the evolutionary “missing link.” Is it possible that this philosophy of being less human with less human rights based upon looks is what led to the horrible death by starvation of Terri Shiavo in Florida?

It looks like she may need to rethink her deeply held beliefs. Notice that I have not thumped a Bible at her, but have approached her arguements on philosophical and consistency grounds.

1: I believe most Americans recognize that there is a moral and ethical distinction to be made between the termination of a pregnancy and the wanton killing of a living, breathing human being.

2: I believe most Americans know that while a woman’s fertilized egg or blastocyst is genetically “human,” the resemblance to a person ends there.

3: The vast majority of abortions take place within the first trimester of pregnancy, and most American still prefer that women still have that option.

4: The most emotional arguments against abortion hinge on religious beliefs: That a human pregnancy is somehow “sacred” or that a fertilized egg is imbued with some kind of “soul” or other supernatural characteristic. Since such relgious beliefs vary widely from person to person, all I can suggest is that pro-lifers are welcome to conduct their own reproductive lives as their conscience and religious beliefs dictate. They have absolutely NO right to demand that others do the same.

5: I consider a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy absolutely FUNDAMENTAL to her right to self-determination. PERIOD.

6: In my lifetime alone, the human population of this planet has DOUBLED from over three billion to over six billion, and it could conceivable TRIPLE to nine billion by the time I’m 70. These are all people that will have to be clothed, fed, educated, housed, employed, transported, and have their medical and sanitary needs met. Inevitably more forests will be cleared to make room for it all, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions will continue to skyrocket, climate change will continue to spiral catastrophically out of control … and TRUST ME, Jesus ain’t gonna come descending out of the clouds to make it all better!

So with that in mind, YES, I’m not only pro-choice, I’m PRO-ABORTION.