[DYNOMITE]

Originally Posted by bozo the clown

Yeah, he's on the brink of a real revelation from the Lord by deciding there should be a cut-off point for abortions.

I've decided. It's the 18.445 week. There, done.

I didn't bring religion into this. Medz's doesn't have to either. I don't think it is unreasonable for people to decide that, at some point, there is another human inside the womb. In fact, I find it unreasonable for any parent who has been a part of a pregnancy to not come to that conclusion. You can shove your religion reference up your ass. It isn't needed here to have this discussion.

[bozo the clown]

No, you can shove your "so decide" up your ass. So decide. Is it 18.667 weeks?

Give me an exact answer right now, or else don't criticize Medz for having an ambivalent, ambiguous view.

[bozo the clown]

OK, do I hear 17.567 weeks?

And don't bring religion into it...

[DYNOMITE]

Most worthless poster on this board.

[bozo the clown]

Answer the question. You demanded the Medz do it.

Hypocrite.

[DYNOMITE]

Originally Posted by bozo the clown

Answer the question. You demanded the Medz do it.

Hypocrite.

I didn't demand shit you dumbfuck. I posted a response to one of his posts. If he answer he answers. He may, he may not. Maybe someone else will chime in and the discussion can move forward. If it doesn't, I don't care.

[ThaMaestro]

Your day will be ruined... admit it.

[DYNOMITE]

Originally Posted by ThaMaestro

Your day will be ruined... admit it.

I demand you stop with the humor!!!!

I demand it!!!!

[Kstat]

I for one welcome our Obama overlord...

[bozo the clown]

Originally Posted by DYNOMITE

I didn't demand shit you dumbfuck. I posted a response to one of his posts. If he answer he answers. He may, he may not. Maybe someone else will chime in and the discussion can move forward. If it doesn't, I don't care.

Yeah, you criticize Medz's ambivalence and tell him to "decide" -- but you won't hold yourself to the same standard !! Hypocrite.

Good job "moving the discussion forward." Pass it on to someone else.

[mn3]

How on earth could Dynomite and Diddy be two separate people? Nobody else does violent irrational rage like that. Both posters were articulate, funny and mean as F_ck.

[Medz]

Dyno, I would love to debate this topic scientifically removed from religious pretext.

Scientists/Doctors generally use the 20th week mark as a solid deliniation. If a pregnancy is terminated before the 20th week they call it a "miscarriage" whereas after that point, they classify it as a "stillbirth". As I said before, 50%-75% of ALL pregnancies end up in miscarriage. Due to a chromosomal abnormality, the fetus will detach from the wall of the uterus. This is a very natural process, selected for by nature, and thus the largest contributor to abortions is actually nothing more than evolution.

Certain people are at higher risk of abortion. Women who are unhealthy, ill, or old will generally be more likely to miscarry. In the context of this debate, it is difficult to pinpoint an exact date where a fetus takes on the characteristics of a human being. Is it when the fetus can survive outside the womb? Is it when brain activity can be identified? Is it when organs begin to form? I'm not knowledgable enough on the subject to make a judgement, which is why I placed it in the timeframe of 12-20 weeks.'

In the first trimester, I don't have a moral problem with electing to have an abortion. After the 12th week, I would look to extenuating circumstances. Is the child going to have severe defects? Was it the product of rape/incest, without the mother knowing she was pregnant? Is the mother visibly unfit to continue the pregnancy? Those questions need to be addressed by the doctor and the mother.

After the 20th week, I think the fetus is far along in its development and the mother has had ample time to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy. After this point, it's only moral to abort in an effort to save the life of the mother.

Beyond this, I can't be specific. I can without a doubt say that a zygote is not the same as a baby carried to term. At that point it's just a multi-celled organism with the potential to become a fetus, nothing more.

[DYNOMITE]

Originally Posted by mn3

How on earth could Dynomite and Diddy be two separate people? Nobody else does violent irrational rage like that. Both posters were articulate, funny and mean as F_ck.

How on earth are you as dumb as you are? I demand an answer.

[mn3]

What surprises me is learning that you are a father. I wouldn't think a dad who is intelligent like you clearly are would be so violent and vile in what you post, and so committed to cultivating life long internet enemies. I assume you don't do that crap with your kids. So that makes it interesting that you hide out in an internet sports fan forum, and announce every so often that you'd like thump some asses.

[DYNOMITE]

Originally Posted by Medz

Dyno, I would love to debate this topic scientifically removed from religious pretext.

Scientists/Doctors generally use the 20th week mark as a solid deliniation. If a pregnancy is terminated before the 20th week they call it a "miscarriage" whereas after that point, they classify it as a "stillbirth". As I said before, 50%-75% of ALL pregnancies end up in miscarriage. Due to a chromosomal abnormality, the fetus will detach from the wall of the uterus. This is a very natural process, selected for by nature, and thus the largest contributor to abortions is actually nothing more than evolution.

Certain people are at higher risk of abortion. Women who are unhealthy, ill, or old will generally be more likely to miscarry. In the context of this debate, it is difficult to pinpoint an exact date where a fetus takes on the characteristics of a human being. Is it when the fetus can survive outside the womb? Is it when brain activity can be identified? Is it when organs begin to form? I'm not knowledgable enough on the subject to make a judgement, which is why I placed it in the timeframe of 12-20 weeks.'

In the first trimester, I don't have a moral problem with electing to have an abortion. After the 12th week, I would look to extenuating circumstances. Is the child going to have severe defects? Was it the product of rape/incest, without the mother knowing she was pregnant? Is the mother visibly unfit to continue the pregnancy? Those questions need to be addressed by the doctor and the mother.

After the 20th week, I think the fetus is far along in its development and the mother has had ample time to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy. After this point, it's only moral to abort in an effort to save the life of the mother.

Beyond this, I can't be specific. I can without a doubt say that a zygote is not the same as a baby carried to term. At that point it's just a multi-celled organism with the potential to become a fetus, nothing more.

So if society has moral obligations to individuals. Why isn't it accepted that society should protect the unborn, reguardless of a mother's desire, (assuming health is not a concern) at a point where society decides the fetus is human. If we as a society, decide human life begins at say 16 weeks, why would anyone be OK with the phrasing "a woman's personal choice" when scientifically it is killing? If society is obligated to the individual, that would have to include unborn children who we have determined to be human beings.

[mn3]

Originally Posted by DYNOMITE

So if society has moral obligations to individuals. Why isn't it accepted that society should protect the unborn, reguardless of a mother's desire, (assuming health is not a concern) at a point where society decides the fetus is human. If we as a society, decide human life begins at say 16 weeks, why would anyone be OK with the phrasing "a woman's personal choice" when scientifically it is killing? If society is obligated to the individual, that would have to include unborn children who we have determined to be human beings.

Unless you are of the opinion that government should choose which religion is correct, and within that religion which version of the religious text is correct, then it's a matter of a social convention - and arbitrary drawing of a line in the sand that allows societies to function. Pick a set day in the pregnancy beyond which the mom doesn't get to choose anymore, and before that day hits leave it up to the mom/dad/parents, depending on those other societal lines that we arbitrarily choose and live with. Anything else is demagoguery, no matter how pretty a bow you try to tie with it.

[DYNOMITE]

Originally Posted by mn3

What surprises me is learning that you are a father. I wouldn't think a dad who is intelligent like you clearly are would be so violent and vile in what you post, and so committed to cultivating life long internet enemies. I assume you don't do that crap with your kids. So that makes it interesting that you hide out in an internet sports fan forum, and announce every so often that you'd like thump some asses.

Not only would I like to thump your dumb ass, it is now an award here at the Palace. I wish you luck in winning.

[Dave Bing]

viability?

[Medz]

Originally Posted by DYNOMITE

So if society has moral obligations to individuals. Why isn't it accepted that society should protect the unborn, reguardless of a mother's desire, (assuming health is not a concern) at a point where society decides the fetus is human. If we as a society, decide human life begins at say 16 weeks, why would anyone be OK with the phrasing "a woman's personal choice" when scientifically it is killing? If society is obligated to the individual, that would have to include unborn children who we have determined to be human beings.

I'm not sure what I said that indicated I felt differently. I do think we have a moral obligation to protect an unborn child beyond a certain point. If we're arbitrarily setting 16 weeks as the cutoff point, then yes I would say it should be illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion after that certain point, unless circumstances arise that change the facts of the specific case. I don't believe abortions should be legal through out the term of the pregnancy, but at the same time, scientifically a fetus in, let's say, the 4th or 5th week of a pregnancy isn't developed enough to restrict an abortion if the mother is unable or unwilling to carry out the pregnancy and deliver the baby.

[bozo the clown]

Scientists/Doctors generally use the 20th week mark as a solid deliniation. If a pregnancy is terminated before the 20th week they call it a "miscarriage" whereas after that point, they classify it as a "stillbirth". As I said before, 50%-75% of ALL pregnancies end up in miscarriage. Due to a chromosomal abnormality, the fetus will detach from the wall of the uterus. This is a very natural process, selected for by nature, and thus the largest contributor to abortions is actually nothing more than evolution.

Good posts, Medz. I wonder what medical criteria physicians consider when demarcating the 20th week as a hallmark in fetal development... Haven't researched that.

[Medz]

I'm probably mistaken, but I think the viability of the survival of the fetus rises exponentially after the 20th week. My numbers are probably off, but I believe 80% of known miscarriages (where the woman knew she was pregnant) occur before the 12th week, 15% occur between the 12th and 20th week, and then any 'stillbirths' that occur after the 20th week are very rarely a problem with the chromosomes of the fetus and much more likely a physical problem arising with the mother.

I'll qualify, most of these numbers I'm quoting off memory, so someone doing research or with more knowledge may prove me wrong.

[Dave Bing]

I think that "viability" is a a reasonable cut off. After that, there should be only extraordinary reasons for aborting. Before that, it should be at the discretion of the mother and perhaps her doctor. A fetus, even with some brain activity and functioning organs, is not in my opinion entitled to the rights of a citizen if it is not viable, not able to live in this world even with medical assistance. Maybe that's at 20 weeks. But separately, I don't know that there is a great public benefit in increasing the amount of unwanted children being born to mothers who would prefer not to have them. We have enough lonely, hungry, neglected kids as it is. We hardly need thousands more. Forcing women to deliver is not the same as forcing them to be good, even merely competent, mothers.

[hack]

If it's true that life begins at 40...

[esther kim]

Bottom line: a woman and a woman alone has sovereignty over her her own body!

Also, there's a strong majority of pro-lifers who are hopelessly inconsistent on abortion.
They are repelled by it, they want it to happen a lot less, and they don't mind discouraging
abortion as birth control. But they are prepared to tolerate it for rape, incest, severe defects--with no apparent awareness of the hopeless moral inconsistency of all this? That equal protection of the law concept somewhat argues for consistency, doesn't it?

[esther kim]

Abortion is not the problem...unwanted pregnancy is the problem. Abortion is the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy. Fix that and the abortion rate drops to negligible numbers...chiming in that not having sex is not a realistic answer. Ideally yes, but that's not reality. Look at the statistics.

The right to life movement has imposed a gag order on government discussing contraception. How is that helping? Teaching abstinence plus contraception is the correct choice, but not allowed under the current rules set by pro-life activists. Quoting theology
specific to one religion is not an answer. Sorry, it isn't.

[Billl]

Originally Posted by esther kim

Bottom line: a woman and a woman alone has sovereignty over her her own body! ?

Arguments like that show that you don't really understand the opposing side The obvious counterargument is that "Of course women have sovereignty over their own bodies, but that sovereignty ends where the baby's body begins." You are making a ton of assumptions before getting to your absolute statements.

Somewhere between conception and delivery, everyone draws a line and says the clump of cells has transformed into a baby. The far extremes of the debate pick the far extremes of that time line. Most everybody else is willing to admit they aren't quite sure where that line should be drawn. Those people tend to conclude that this is a decisions best left to the individual and not the government.

[mn3]

Anyone who says they know the truth about when it's a life that deserves protection is just saying that they want their theology to make the decision for everyone. 100% pure unadulterated fundamentalist religious dogma. Denying that is inauthentic.

[DYNOMITE]

OK Forrest.

[mn3]

Thumper.

[mn3]

[DYNOMITE]

Originally Posted by Dave Bing

I think that "viability" is a a reasonable cut off. After that, there should be only extraordinary reasons for aborting. Before that, it should be at the discretion of the mother and perhaps her doctor. A fetus, even with some brain activity and functioning organs, is not in my opinion entitled to the rights of a citizen if it is not viable, not able to live in this world even with medical assistance. Maybe that's at 20 weeks. But separately, I don't know that there is a great public benefit in increasing the amount of unwanted children being born to mothers who would prefer not to have them. We have enough lonely, hungry, neglected kids as it is. We hardly need thousands more. Forcing women to deliver is not the same as forcing them to be good, even merely competent, mothers.

So you are comfortable with the standard of viable, meaning not able to live in this world even with medical assistance. The age of surviving premature births is being lowered and lowered all the time. There is also some application for your standard to current adults. At what cost? There is no shortage of people in this country who are currently waiting to die, nothing more.

I guess "viable" doesn't do enough for me. I can understand the group that doesn't think a clump of cells is a human or baby. But, somewhere in this process the medical assistance is taken care of by the mother and her ability to carry the child to full term. By design, the baby, in most instances, will survive if we just get out of the way. No medical interference needed.

[Fool]

Originally Posted by mn3

Anyone who says they know the truth about when it's a life that deserves protection is just saying that they want their theology to make the decision for everyone. 100% pure unadulterated fundamentalist religious dogma. Denying that is inauthentic.

Multiple people have said they are trying to have this discussion setting aside their religious views. It looks to me like people are doing an honest and pretty good job of it. Both of your last two posts have imposed a religious agenda onto comments in general if not onto specific posters. I would appreciate it if you stopped that and allowed people to continue what appears to be a good faith effort at setting their "dogma" aside.

[JMab]

Come on people, pro-choice is clearly the logical stance! Esther has as much right to terminate her own unwanted pregnancy as YNH has to waste billions of potential humans on his bathroom floor.

And Hackster, I'm as much of a French-hater as the next xenophobe, but you're way off on the "France only survives on tourism" claim. You realise that France, is like, one of the world's biggest economies? And pretty self-sufficient (i.e. their imports and exports are almost 50/50 - $500bil each)?

If people stopped coming to Paris to climb up the Eiffel Tower, they'd still be exporting cars, machinery, quality consumables (wine, cheese, etc).

[fredsue]

Thank you Bill and fool for your latest posts...I could agree more. You can discuss this without the mn3 trying to paint anyone that does not see his same point of view as wrong.

This obviously is a very difficult topic. I am trying to keep myself to have an open mind to keep the discussion flowing...This has been a very good discussion on this topic IMO.

[Orwellian O.]

Below is an email I received from a friend who has been a big Obama supporter....


"The Obama administration has handled the economic crisis in the MOST
CARELESS AND INEFFECTIVE WAY ever imaginable. It all starts with that
idiot Timothy Geithner appointed by Obama and that loser Laurence Summers.
Laurence Summers is antiquated and not knowledgeable about how the current
economy works and Geithner simply put is a retard and not ready for prime
time. I could go on for days about all the useless new government
programs created by Obama's administration like the program proposing to
have the private sector buy toxic assets from banks with government support
while simultaneously making any participant subject to rules so stringent
that no firm in their right mind would become a part of the program.

But the best examples of the incompetence of the Obama administration are
these "public" bank stress tests they have come out with (Thankfully the
market knows these stress tests are a joke and has ignored Obama and Co.).
WHAT KIND OF IDIOTS PUBLICIZE THAT THEY ARE DOING "STRESS TESTS" ON BANKS
AND THEN SAY THEY WILL MAKE RESULTS PUBLIC???!!!!!!!!!! Even a little kid
knows that ANY kind of concern of a bank's viability could cause a "run on
the bank". So what does Obama and Geithner do? They announce that they
will tell the whole world which banks need to raise capital. Since the
birth of capitalism talks like these have been correctly "private". You
can't go around leaking rumors to the media and leaking bank "stress test"
results to the media like the Obama administration is doing.

ESPECIALLY NOT DURING THE WORST ECONOMIC CRISIS SINCE THE GREAT
DEPRESSION!!!!!!!

For example let's say now Obama and Co. says a particular bank now has to
raise capital. Well now it's like instead of this bank being able to
privately raise capital secretly under advantageous conditions, any would
be investor with this new public knowledge leaked by the government will
now either not invest in the bank OR make the conditions to raise this
capital impossible due to debt covenants so restrictive that the bank
wouldn't want the new money anyway. Worse the bank may not be able to find
any investors at all and then a run on the bank causes it to go out of
business which then causes fear in the market in general and causes another
market crash.

So again Obama and Co. are shooting themselves in the foot. They're darn
lucky this latest stunt didn't cause another stock market crash!!!! In
general never in the history of man has a government been so incompetent in
doling out economic policies and making it clear what their actual plans
are to the American public. ALL the market wants is CLARITY about what the
government will do! But EVERY major economic announcement has been
fumbled and released with confusion. The ONLY reason the markets finally
rebounded is that people just stopped listening to the government and went
about getting things done on their own. When the market was eagerly
listening to Obama it dropped another 12% and hit a low on March 9th as it
fell in a jumble of confusion about what the government would do. Then the
market simply tuned out Obama and figured things out on their own.

Our government has always been run by fools but Obama's administration
takes the cake. Never in my life have I seen such incompetence. Again
this goes back to the whole problem of Obama thinking he's still
"campaigning" for President vs "being" President. Obama is a smart guy.
We all know this. One of the smartest and well educated Presidents we've
ever had. So why is he foolishly delegating "ISSUE #1" topics like the
economy to "has beens" like Laurence Summers and neophytes like Timothy
Geithner????? He needs to be assembling the BEST economic and financial
minds DAILY and working out solutions that actually make sense instead of
saying "Well look...I have a ballet to go to with Michelle....So Tim, Larry
and Ben go ahead and sort this issue out..I'll back whatever you come up
with..". Just stupidity. You can't be hands on in everything as President
but for the main issues you better make sure you put your stamp on
something that is extremely important.

This same lackadaisical attitude was taken with the last budget proposal.
TONS of wasteful spending got included and Obama didn't say one word
against it because he simply delegated the budget to someone else (Nancy
Pelosi) instead of being involved.

This is outrageous!!! The incompetence is sickening!!!!! We already know
the Obama administration isn't doing anything for us "the people" to date.
Then we have to put up with this routine incompetence in doling out
economic policy. Obama's lucky the majority of Americans are simply NOT
FINANCIALLY LITERATE."

[mn3]

Did I say that someone with a religious point of view is wrong? I don't recall that I did, but I'm not planning on going back through my posts to check up on myself. But I do argue that anyone who thinks they know when a fertilized egg becomes a life subject to society's protection, is basing this only on his belief system - and that everyone else who disagrees with his religion is wrong. It's just what's so. It's a classic case of religious intolerance.

[mn3]

Here's an email I received from a Rush Limbaugh supporter:

"I just realized that Rush is a big buffoon and that our Republican ideals are really a pile of poop. Lowering taxes on the rich doesn't act in a trickle down fashion like we were told - unless you think that the rich peeing on the middle class and doing a dookie right on the poor is effective trickle down."

[Fool]

Newman, you've been asked to stop.

[Orwellian O.]

Actully, I posted it not because it represented some "conversion to the other side", but because it comes from one of the smartest guys on Wall Street. There is some good info in that message.

He never bought into the Obama as savior thinking....but now he knows why I was so worried about his presidency....Jimmy Carter 2?

[Medz]

Not surprising - one of the "smartest guys on Wall Street" writes like an illiterate moron.

[fredsue]

Originally Posted by mn3

Did I say that someone with a religious point of view is wrong? I don't recall that I did, but I'm not planning on going back through my posts to check up on myself. But I do argue that anyone who thinks they know when a fertilized egg becomes a life subject to society's protection, is basing this only on his belief system - and that everyone else who disagrees with his religion is wrong. It's just what's so. It's a classic case of religious intolerance.

I cannot attest to knowing when a fertilized egg becomes a human but I can testify to having my neice in my school (was taught by my wife last year) doing quite well. She was born I believe at week 20 or 21 and was teh size of your hand. She is performing better than average. I am pretty sure she is a human. Nothing religious about that. Pure Science....which you seem to hold onto with other issues....

[mn3]

Originally Posted by Fool

Newman, you've been asked to stop.

No. I was asked not to go over the line in getting too personal about Dynomite's family. I'll post all I want about the pure silliness and often pure evilness of the far-right. What used to be a serious political party has been dominated in recent years by fools like Bush 43 and Palin, or dangerous ideologues like Cheney and Rush, or far righters like Falwell. Good men like McCain have been forced to sell out their principles -- (picking and sticking with Palin was a betrayal of this country and McCain knew it and most hard core Republicans willingly repeated the lie, pretty much wiping out their credibility. Moderates are leaving the party in droves. A whole generation of voters is deeply turned off. And 8 straight years of this has left the U.S. bankrupt and disrespected around the world.

This is serious stuff. High crimes were committed in the world. Countless lives have been lost and maimed. The Bush administration started wars for the wrong reaons, outed a CIA agent to cover up its war decision, and allowed the systematic looting of our economy by the rich.

I get to write about this. I get to ridicule the perpetrators. So Fool, you don't get to vote about what I freely write.

[fredsue]

I love how you point things out in such a way that you think it is impossible to have another opinion and be right...yet you complain about intolerance...classic.

[Dave Bing]

Originally Posted by mn3

Here's an email I received from a Rush Limbaugh supporter:

"I just realized that Rush is a big buffoon and that our Republican ideals are really a pile of poop. Lowering taxes on the rich doesn't act in a trickle down fashion like we were told - unless you think that the rich peeing on the middle class and doing a dookie right on the poor is effective trickle down."

Newman, don't try shtick. You are not good at it. Remember, comedy is hard.

[Dave Bing]

Newman almost makes me want to switch sides.

[fredsue]

Originally Posted by mn3

No. I was asked not to go over the line in getting too personal about Dynomite's family. I'll post all I want about the pure silliness and often pure evilness of the far-right. What used to be a serious political party has been dominated in recent years by fools like Bush 43 and Palin, or dangerous ideologues like Cheney and Rush, or far righters like Falwell. Good men like McCain have been forced to sell out their principles -- (picking and sticking with Palin was a betrayal of this country and McCain knew it and most hard core Republicans willingly repeated the lie, pretty much wiping out their credibility. Moderates are leaving the party in droves. A whole generation of voters is deeply turned off. And 8 straight years of this has left the U.S. bankrupt and disrespected around the world.

This is serious stuff. High crimes were committed in the world. Countless lives have been lost and maimed. The Bush administration started wars for the wrong reaons, outed a CIA agent to cover up its war decision, and allowed the systematic looting of our economy by the rich.

I get to write about this. I get to ridicule the perpetrators. So Fool, you don't get to vote about what I freely write.

again intolerance is ok when you do it but obviously wrong for anyone else...classic....

[Dave Bing]

Apropos:

White House Begins Effort to Bridge the Divide on Abortion - WSJ.com

White House Begins Effort to Bridge the Divide on Abortion Article

By LAURA MECKLER

WASHINGTON -- The White House has begun bringing together a diverse group of abortion-rights supporters and opponents to help craft policies both sides can embrace: preventing unwanted pregnancies and reducing demand for abortion.

President Barack Obama appears to be trying to make good on his pledge to defuse tensions around polarizing issues.

The White House is meeting with a diverse group of abortion rights supporters and opponents in an effort to craft policies both sides could embrace. WSJ's Laura Meckler reports.
The effort could also be in his political interests. While he may not win over abortion opponents on the issue, if he is seen as having a genuine interest in finding common ground, that could persuade some to judge him on other policies where they may agree with him, such as economics.

Interviews with several participants suggest there is some common ground, but plenty of disagreements remain. It will be challenging for the White House to settle on policies that reach across the spectrum.

Participants said that abortion opponents tended to focus on efforts to help pregnant women keep their babies, while the abortion-rights camp focused on preventing unwanted pregnancy.

Some in the antiabortion community, for instance, suggested more support for pregnancy "crisis centers," which discourage women from having abortions. But abortion-rights supporters say these centers give out inaccurate information. Abortion-rights supporters want more support for contraception, which some abortion opponents are unenthusiastic about.

"Not everyone may agree on every issue we discuss, but we think there is enough common ground and potential for common ground here that people can help us to move forward," said domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes, who is leading the initiative.

The meetings -- anywhere from a dozen to two dozen people at a time -- began about a month ago and are expected to continue for another six to eight weeks. The White House hopes to have a proposal formed by late summer, Ms. Barnes said.

At the end of the process, the White House doesn't plan to seek any official endorsement for its proposals from any of the participants, Ms. Barnes said. Staff will review the comments and materials provided and develop recommendations for the president.

Mr. Obama has made it clear that he supports legal abortion, and he has taken several steps already that are consistent with that view. He lifted rules that prevent U.S. funding for international family-planning organizations that promote or offer abortion. And he also is allowing much greater federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, which many abortion opponents decry. But in each case, the president emphasized that he hoped to find ways to bridge the divide over the issue.

"I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion or at least considering getting an abortion," he said at a news conference last week.

At the start of the initiative, the White House took off the table any discussion of whether abortion should be legal.

Ms. Barnes told participants that the White House is interested in hearing ideas in several areas, among them: sex education; responsible use of contraception; maternal and child health; pregnancy discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere; and adoption.

Participants say that suggestions included: improving education about use of contraception; better access to emergency contraception (which can be used after sex); improving education about sex, relationships and the "sacredness of sex"; stamping out employment discrimination against pregnant women; improving family-leave policies; and encouraging adoption.

One suggestion was to set a concrete goal for abortion reduction, such as a 25% reduction in four years. The number of abortions peaked in 1990 at 1.6 million and has declined every year since then, reaching 1.2 million in 2005, the latest year for which data are available.

David Gushee, an abortion opponent and professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University in Atlanta who has participated in the talks, said the act of convening people is valuable. "When people get into a room working on a common problem it's harder to demonize them when they leave the room."

"If you hear all points of view it makes for better policy," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, another participant in the discussions.

Another participant, Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, was skeptical that the effort could reduce tension around the abortion fight.

"There will still be women who need abortion and still groups trying very hard to prevent access to that right," she said. She is fine with the president reaching out to the other side, she said, as long as his policies continue to support the abortion-rights agenda.

At least one of the loudest voices in the abortion debate wasn't in the room. Douglas Johnson, legislative director of National Right to Life, said he wasn't invited to participate.

He said that Mr. Obama's policies on funding and other matters will inevitably lead to more abortions. "We think this is a political hoax mapped out by career pro-abortion activists and adopted by a politician with an abortion record far to the left of the mainstream."

[mn3]

Originally Posted by fredsue

I cannot attest to knowing when a fertilized egg becomes a human but I can testify to having my neice in my school (was taught by my wife last year) doing quite well. She was born I believe at week 20 or 21 and was teh size of your hand. She is performing better than average. I am pretty sure she is a human. Nothing religious about that. Pure Science....which you seem to hold onto with other issues....

That's nice. Really. Maybe scientifically the line should move. But no matter what, if you say you know what the line must be then you're imposing your morality and beliefs on others.

[Dave Bing]

Unless you are a scientist?

[Orwellian O.]

There is not bridge to be built....abortion is evil/wrong/immoral....in all circumstances...