The abortion debate should change

The abortion debate should change
  • 1033
  • 104
  • 9

My Recent Posts

We have a lot of people on both sides of the issue going at each other like an MMA fight and it is even a tad entertaining to those of us who study people and their actions as a hobby but if we take a step back and let go of all the political, partisan bickering there are a lot strong reasons why the abortion debate should be seen as completely different than back in 1973 when Roe – v – Wade was decided, I will offer a few but there are many more if you think about it:


  1. Society in general has changed, being a single mother in 1973 was rare and it imposed hardships on women back then that were difficult to overcome but today 50% of all children will be raised without their father in the home. Being a single mother is now the norm and is socially acceptable and even encouraged in many ways today.
  2. Laws have changed, back in 1973 most men could still rape their wives and not get into trouble for it, forcing women into pregnancy as a measure of control was a very big deal in 1973. Today new laws and awareness has given women greater power and control over their own bodies and relationships. 
  3. Child support, in 1973 a woman with children had few options for supporting herself but today all States have extremely strong child support laws and it is very easy for women to get support (unless he is scum working under the table and making babies with a man like that was pretty stupid anyway), that combined with greater acceptance of women in the workforce have given Women more power than Men in many ways.
  4. Birth control cost. Birth control in 1973 was expensive and unreliable, difficult to get and close to impossible for poor women.  Today the most popular hormonal birth control pill is available at Wal-Mart for $26 a month without any form of insurance. 
  5. Birth control availability, even if you do not want to take a daily pill there are now implants and patches. There are even permanent plugs you can have installed (IUDs) to make you immune to pregnancy, but those are less available to poor women but still around the same cost as a top tier cellphone so not really that much out of reach when we consider how many poor people have the latest smartphones.
  6. Emergency birth control, So even if you are the most irresponsible person in the world, you just spread your legs without any consideration for protection from pregnancy to avoid hurting the passion and power of sexual encounters, you can still head out the next day after your night of unrestrained passion and get either a Cooper IUD that has an almost perfect effectiveness rate or a standard day after pill ( plan B, One-Step, Ella, Ulipristal, levonorgestrel, etc) have from 52% to 100% effectiveness depending on factors such as how soon after unprotected sex you took the dose.


The point of my story is not to push an anti-abortion agenda, while I have a personal belief that abortion is wrong I do not desire to impose this standard on society.  My personal view for Government is to be completely out of the abortion business, society in general and Government played no part in the conception of the unwanted child and should play no part in the results.


My desire is to modernize the debate and bring it out of the dark ages where it currently resides.  If we accept the fact that most of the reasons for the passage of Roe - V - Wade back in 1973 no longer exist or no longer have the kind of negative impact as they did 44 years ago, then that frees us to have an honest debate on the merits today.



If we ignored the existing laws and were having a fresh debate proposing making abortions legal, what would be the argument for it? 


I'm sorry but the case being made seems weak to me.  There is no rational excuse for an unwanted pregnancy outside of rape and incest in this modern age.  Everyone knows where babies come from, we do not have an education problem in America.  The average abortion is to women who already have children and state the need to care for existing children as their main reason for getting an abortion so if they know how babies are made, and they know they have to care for existing children, why are they intentionally having high risk sexual encounters?


There is simply no logic to it, but again, I am not asking for Abortions to be banned, just trying to generate an actual debate on the facts as they are today.




Thanks for taking the time to read my story, please stay on topic in replies and leave personal attacks and such out of it if you would like to reply.



In closing, if you ask people just a simple yes or no question concerning allowing abortions you will generally get mostly yes answers, but if you allow for more nuanced replies, the majority of Americans agree We need more restrictions to abortions .




Donna Added Apr 3, 2017 - 3:42pm

How many kids are in foster care in the United States?

And instead of being safely reunified with their families — or moved quickly into adoptive homes — many will languish for years in foster homes or institutions. On any given day, there are nearly 428,000 children in foster care in the United States. In 2015, over 670,000 children spent time in U.S. foster care.
Louis,this is what concerns me, who would take care of them? 
Now to your topic, i will agree that times are different.
I would like to see this stay for one simple reason, rape victims. They don't all decide the day after to take a pill, most don't even think of this, as they are in shock from the crime. Also some women who have a risk to their lives, would require termination of the pregnancy.
I would like to see an option of more talking in schools, as sex education is a thing of the past,(at least here in my state) more parent involvement with their own children, but that will always be an issue, as some will never teach them any thing. No child should suffer due to being born and not wanted..this is of course my Humble opinion. )0(

Steve Borsher Added Apr 3, 2017 - 3:55pm
Early term abortion is certainly better than extremely late term abortion where families killed their youngest, even when sentient, because they couldn't feed everyone; and it was not "illegal". That was even back as recently as the end of the 19th century. Do you really think things have changed that much. The pro-lifers like to think so, even as more babies show dumpsters.
George N Romey Added Apr 3, 2017 - 3:58pm
The issue I see is that the pro life crowd is often the anti birth control crowd and anti sexual education crowd.  They believe that if its not talked about it won't happen.  Young people have been having pre martial sex since the ions and abortions were done before its legal.  If we really want to cut down on the number of abortions as a society we need to easily give other alternatives. particularly to the women that get stuck with the problem.
Donna Added Apr 3, 2017 - 4:02pm
Steve, just had a case like that last year in my state. She had the baby in a bathroom at work, went on break,put it in a dumpster at work, and went back finished her shift, as it was nothing..Sad in this day and age, all she had to do was literally walk across the street, the church is a safe haven..child would have been taken in, instead, a child died alone in the cold lonely dumpster, while mom is now in jail..
Underlying circumstances from the mothers childhood, however never a reason for what she did to a child..
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 3, 2017 - 4:02pm
Well there are massive waiting lines all over America for adopting infants, locally the waiting time is about 7 years.  If parents do not want their children, they let them be adopted when babies and we would not be having this kind of problem you talk about.
Yes, some parents abuse their kids and those kids end up in foster care.  My Aunt fostered over 100 kids and ended up adopting 5 of them so I know what you are talking about.  These older kids end up in the system and rarely get permanent, loving homes.
I already said rape and incest are cased of reasonable excuses for unintended pregnancies, but those are less than 1% of total abortions performed in America so we can easily carve out a good process for them while we deal with the mostly irresponsibility based abortions.
I do not know about other places by locally a woman is offered a day after pill at the time of her rape kit, I find that to be reasonable.  nobody I have ever known wants to force a woman or especially an abused child to carry an unwanted pregnancy forced onto her.
How do we make sexually active adults be responsible?  This is the main problem.  Depending on what statistics you look at, about half of all unintended pregnancies end up as abortions, so if you look at the grand total of all unintended pregnancies that is a lot of irresponsible behavior going on, and education plays no part in this mess, they know what causes unwanted babies and they have unprotected sex anyway.  
And let's not forget that if they are doing things that end in an unwanted pregnancy, that also means they are exposing themselves to a lot of diseases at the same time.  Sad.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 3, 2017 - 4:03pm
Not sure of the point you are trying to make.  Can you clarify?
Dino Manalis Added Apr 3, 2017 - 4:06pm
I don't like abortions, but it's a personal moral decision and nobody else's business.  However, I hope science will be able to produce embryonic stem cells without the need for aborted fetuses.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 3, 2017 - 4:07pm
I have not the first clue who you are talking about.  I have never met a single Conservative or Republican who has ever expressed an anti-birth control belief in my life and I have been deeply involved in all aspects of politics for over 35 years now.
You seem to repeating a lie, please refrain from such on my stories.  If you want to make the claim all pro-lifers are anti-birth control then please provide a link proving your claim.
We can't deal with the problem until those who are being irresponsible have to start taking some responsibility for their actions.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 3, 2017 - 4:10pm
all she had to do was literally walk across the street, the church is a safe haven..child would have been taken in, instead, a child died alone in the cold lonely dumpster
Great point Donna, there are other options, waiting times for infants is many years, some loving couple would have gladly taken that child, but something inside her was broken for her to do as she did.
And what about those around her?  Nobody noticed she was pregnant one moment and not pregnant later in the same day?  Where have we gone as a society where this sort of thing is acceptable? 
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 3, 2017 - 4:14pm
If you care to offer a counter to any of my many points please do so, but just calling me names and declaring it all "bullshit" is childish and not part of reasonable debate.
This is what is wrong with the radical left, you can't actually have a fact based discussion, all you have is name calling.
If you would like to grow up and offer some debate to the many points offered I will gladly go over them with you and we can have an adult conversation, but claiming I am not a good person is making it personal and I will not allow that sort of thing anymore, you have been warned.
Steve Borsher Added Apr 3, 2017 - 4:18pm
My point was actually reinforcing yours. This problem has been kicked around for over a hundred years (or more), just like racial bias, and no answer has been found. All debates must change, and to do that our entire political system must change. Everyone keeps looking for the answer to this problem and that problem, where the real problem is systemic to the entire system. Therefore, I spend very little time in debates about things that have no solution at the level they are being debated.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 3, 2017 - 4:18pm
I agree it is a personal decision, but as part of the PP funding discussions, Government does in fact does fund abortions.  While the Tax money may not directly pay for the abortions it does pay for the rent, the water bill, the medical supplies, the employees, etc.
Few abortion clinics could exist without Government funding, this is the point.  If you forced people to actually pay what the true cost of abortions really were few could afford it.
So while it is a personal decision, it is not personally paid for so that does drag society into the discussion.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 3, 2017 - 4:23pm
If you do not intend to offer any actual substance, why reply at all?
Why must everything be destroyed to address any issue?  You seem to be dodging hard discussions by saying oh well, we can't do anything till other things change first and that is simply not true.
I have seen some of the most dangerous areas of towns get cleaned up, drug dealers driven away and streets safe to walk again all when people like you claimed change was impossible until the entire system changed.  
Lots of "impossible" things happen all the time.
But for all problems we must first start with basic facts, you can't address a problem until you identify the problem.  This is the basic idea I am starting with. 
Donna Added Apr 3, 2017 - 4:23pm
You are correct, i do not know the answer to this one, it will i am guessing always be a struggle for many.
I see both sides, as a woman, i want my freedom with my body, however, i see more and more that it has become a form of birth control for many. Not the intent at all..and extremely sad..
As you stated we all know where babies come from, i would like to say we need to be a much more focused society, in we need to pay more attention to what we are doing and the consequences. I am not of child bearing age any longer. 
I would like to add this to your story..
George for you as well, I have a 19 year old nephew, his gal would not use birth control, insisted they could use the pull out method,(talk about outdated)  well he was in love..( the wonderful so over used four letter word..) 
Jump to now, mom is gone, baby is seven months old, and she is the apple of her daddies eye, he is raising her alone, mom sent a text , sorry i can't take care of her, it is to much, i don't want her...Oh but she wants to stay with my nephew! Now i included this for 2 reasons, one i am extremely proud of my nephew, second, is the fact that he is going for sole custody, and as i am writing this i am hoping the judge sees that the father cares and the mom abandoned her child..She found out her benefits were cut off, now its oh but i want her back..Please wish him luck with this, he is truly the only parent this little girl knows, and in most cases it goes for the mom.
Louis, my nephew has learned a valuable lesson, he will never trust anyone to tell him its SAFE, he will always be the best dad he can be, all he says is how can you look at her and not want her..He has learned that life can throw you many curve balls so to speak, it is all in how you handle yourself that matters..
I think part of the problem in today's world is we have become a throw away society, and there were no lines drawn as to what we were throwing away..including a life..)0(
George N Romey Added Apr 3, 2017 - 4:31pm
Donna your nephew is truly a man and a gentleman and please support him.  My own personal story. My oldest brother got involved with a "girl from the other side of the tracks."  Well the girl got pregnant and it takes two to tangle.  My upper income mother essentially drove my brother away from his obligation because she was the one with the baby.  Its easier for the guy to walk away, he is not carrying that human being inside him for nine months.
I also agree on our throw away society.  We should make the adoption process easier and be willing to give the natural mother visiting rights if she wants it, and she is willing to give up the child for good and put that in writing.  Birth control should be made available.
Steve Borsher Added Apr 3, 2017 - 4:41pm
Well, Louis, if you don;t like me supporting your position my way, then i will leave. I have spent many years on WB having endless discussions that ultimatley went nowhere. As a present to myself for my 70th birthday, I am cutting back on time wasting activities such as that. I now only participate when i get an email on a topic I find interesting, hoping against hope that it will lead to some sort of resolution. But they never will until the entire system is changed. So, in deference to you, I will unsubscribe.
Donna Added Apr 3, 2017 - 4:48pm
George, I am in full support of my nephew. He came to me and asked in the very beginning when he found out, what should i do. my answer was simple, you have no choice, until the baby is born, it is all up to the mom, who insisted they have a child, because all of her friends did, so in my mind, this was done on purpose, on her part. Then to simply text and that is how you say you are no longer going to be a mommy, piece of crap of a chic! I am now waiting for the courts to step up the game, and see that dads have the same rights, esp. when he is the sole parent, and gave up his job to be home and able to take care of her, no child care in this area until baby is at least 18 months old. So family is now helping him..that is what we are for!
Boss told him, he would take him back when ever he can come back, he was so impressed with this kids honesty, and his lack of an attitude over taking care of a baby. The man was shocked ..He told him not many men who are grown fully with a good job, would do what you are, so i am hoping character witnesses play a part in the process of custody..
Louis, sorry to go off topic on your article. )0(
George N Romey Added Apr 3, 2017 - 4:59pm
George your nephew's boss, also a man of honor.  We need more men in society like your nephew and his boss.  Men willing to step up and be a man.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 3, 2017 - 5:17pm
Great reply and yes I will pray for your nephew because he sounds like a young man who is willing to be responsible, that is all anyone could ask for.  Nobody is perfect, but how we deal with our mistakes defines us.
I agree this is a complex issue, all I ask for is that we bring the discussion into the here and now, now wallow in issues that are no longer relevant to the discussion and you have tried to do that, thanks.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 3, 2017 - 5:23pm
You were warned, you made all sorts of lies and personal attacks such as claiming I screamed at Women entering abortion clinics, this is the typical tactic of all of you on the radical left who must make up sick fantasies about those who do not bow down to you.
I removed your lie filled comment.
If you want to participate in an adult conversation stick to verifiable facts and logic, not wallow in emotion based personal attacks.
I am done with you, move along.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 3, 2017 - 5:25pm
The comments section either means something or it does not.  What was the point of saying nothing will ever change?
And you are wrong, things do change without everything being torn down, yes it may be more difficult and maybe you did not get exactly the end result you dreamed of but things can change.  We need to star with basic facts though, and this was the point of my story.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 3, 2017 - 5:39pm
you lied, I am not like anyone else, if you can't conduct yourself as an adult and refrain from personal attacks you are not allowed to post in my story, you were warned, don't cry.
If you care to make a comment based on facts and not personal attacks then I will gladly engage you, but if not then stay away.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 3, 2017 - 6:15pm
You on the radical left make this too easy, lol.
According to the most respected source for abortion facts in the world:
The reasons patients gave for having an abortion underscored their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. The three most common reasons—each cited by three-fourths of patients—were concern for or responsibility to other individuals; the inability to afford raising a child; and the belief that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents. Half said they did not want to be a single parent or were having problems with their husband or partner
Sorry bud but if I say something, you can take it to the bank I can support what I say, unlike you, lol.
Link so you can educate yourself.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 3, 2017 - 6:32pm
Now you are trying to play stupid, did you even bother to check out the link I provided?  
Fifty-nine percent of abortions in 2014 were obtained by patients who had had at least one birth.
Some 75% of abortion patients in 2014 were poor or low-income. Twenty-six percent of patients had incomes of 100–199% of the federal poverty level, and 49% had incomes of less than 100% of the federal poverty level ($15,730 for a family of two).
Put it together Mike, you seem to show yourself a smart guy so most abortions being to poor women, well over half already having at least 1 child, but you do not believe money plays a part in the abortion discussion?
You are being disingenuous, another form of dishonesty.
What I said is true, the best complain t you can offer is that the top answer is a three way tie, but that is not a valid complaint.  You were wrong, have enough integrity to admit you were wrong when you called me a liar, if you can't do that much I will not waste any more time on you.
Facts not emotions Mike.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 3, 2017 - 6:40pm
No further comments from you will be allowed until you admit you were wrong when you called me a liar.
Trolls have to pay for their mistakes.
Leroy Added Apr 3, 2017 - 8:38pm
Great post, Louis.  My beliefs are along a similar line.
You stated the "If we accept the fact that most of the reasons for the passage of Roe - V - Wade back in 1973...".  You speak of it as though it was a law that was passed.  It was legislation from the bench.  It was ruled as a right to privacy under the 9 and 14 amendments.  It is not really a law in an of itself.
One point that I don't understand is why rape and incest should be excluded.  Either life is sacred or it is not.  You seem to say that abortion is immoral after a certain point and I would agree.  But, I still don't see how rape and incest make it ok--after a certain point.   The only exceptions I make--after a certain point--is if the woman's life is at stake or if the baby will be born with a severe disease.  There is no need to put someone through a life of misery--either the mother nor the child.  I know that it doesn't quite jive with the sacredness of life.
I do believe that no one has a claim on another person's life.  A mother should be free to make that decision up to the point where the fetus becomes a life.  That point, to me, is when it is viable outside the womb.
Getting back to the point of your article, I don't think the passage of time has made any difference, other than the medical progress we have made and the viability of the fetus outside the womb.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 3, 2017 - 9:02pm
Yes, it was a bad choice of words by me, the new legal view was created from thin air by the supreme court, the true example of activist courts to the extreme, but no matter how we got here, the same point is made, today we have a different America than then.
The main reason for legal abortion was the social impact on women and the need for the courts to step in and defend Women from these social impacts.  today those impacts either do not exist or they are severely diminished so that is the basis for my call to rethink how we view the topic.
As far as my rape and incest point goes, to me the definition of morals is based on intent and responsibility.  You kill a man after a verbal dispute that is called murder, you kill the same man because he is trying to kill you, that is called self-defense.  Same dead man, same action to kill, the only difference is the specific intent of the killer.
A Women who is raped or a girl who is the victim of incest played no part in the responsibility of the creation of the child, there is no moral duty to preserve a life that was forced upon them.  In fact you could be doing permanent mental harm to those women by forcing them to endure a constant reminder of the attacks on them by denying them an abortion.  My stands are based completely on responsibility and most of our legal system is based on the same standard.  A drunk may not intentionally run into someone with his car and kill them but he is still responsible because he played an active role in operating a vehicle in an impaired state.  
A rape victim has no responsibility for their condition, so while I would like to see them give life a chance, I cannot hold them to any blame should they want to remove it from their body.
Leroy Added Apr 3, 2017 - 9:12pm
I understand your point, Louis, but even a rape victim has an opportunity to abort the fetus before it becomes viable outside the womb.
Murder and self-defense, as you put it, isn't the proper analogy, IMHO.  Murder is the abortion of a viable fetus.  Self-defense is abortion to save the life of the mother.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 3, 2017 - 9:21pm
I was never advocating any abortion past viability, you are mistaking my stand.  I am simply providing my various views on how responsibility changed under certain circumstances as it applies to abortion. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 4, 2017 - 3:11am
All this nonsense wouldn't be going on were it not for the mutant Puritan gene present in so many DUHmericans. 
You cannot and should not legislate morality. 
Dr. Rupert Green Added Apr 4, 2017 - 6:50am
A very touchy subject. Many men have touched the fruit forbidden to them based of the legal possession of their own fruits. They then recommend and pay for abortion to cover up the dastardly deed.  Such men are found in the houses of God preaching, in the political, and other arenas trumpeting the immorality of abortion.
In a previous time, Americans loved their liquor and the gov said no, even outlawing it. The people made their demand for their liquor known and the Supreme Court reversed itself. Given we have Roe all these years and the death, bombing, murders from opponents against abortion loving people have  waned, do we overturn it and have proponents engage in their series of bombings, murders, and death?
I have seen abortions as an operating room worker. I have seen the young woman coming for her 7th.  Oh yes, we have had the straying wives needing their abortions, because the days when a husband would accept a black and a White twin as his own child are long past.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 4, 2017 - 8:37am
All laws are written morals.  We do not allow murder because society has said it is morally wrong, but at the same time we allow killing for self-defense, same dead body, one is a crime and one is not and all because of the moral decision of society to make it so.
Where you from Jeffry?  As much as you spam attacks on Americans I assume you life in a perfect society with zero corruption or violence or greed?
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 4, 2017 - 8:39am
Not sure what any of that had to do with my story, yes I know lots of evil people try to cover up those things they are ashamed of, but my topic is about how times have changed in the last 44 years as it relates to the abortion debate.
Dr. Rupert Green Added Apr 4, 2017 - 9:06am
Not sure what any of that had to do with my story, yes I know lots of evil people try to cover up those things they are ashamed of, but my topic is about how times have changed in the last 44 years as it relates to the abortion debate."
if underlined in preceding was the intention at hand, why not let established law prevail instead of stirring up/illuminating a thorny, nation dividing and contentious matter? 
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 4, 2017 - 9:37am
Established law had marriage between a man and a Woman only.  Should we favor established law instead of stirring up a thorny and contentious matter?
Why are you so scared of debate on contentious issues?  Are we too brittle and frail to handle such important discussions?  Should we cower and hide from difficult topics?
Established law set Blacks as slaves, should we have stuck to established law?
Established law segregated schools and kept women from voting and let's not forget that Roe - v - Wade was itself challenging established laws so I simply do not understand why you would question the need and desire to challenge ourselves on important topics.  
It is in human nature to challenge the establishment on many levels, to study and nit-pick and constantly debate and contest the existing order of things.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 4, 2017 - 1:10pm
Where you from Jeffry?  As much as you spam attacks on Americans I assume you life in a perfect society with zero corruption or violence or greed?
I, in a spate of great misfortune was born in your warmongering terrorist cesspool Louis. I was educated there as well. I left there a few years after graduation. That was more than 35 years ago. I will never again set foot there for any reason whatsoever.
I know you're all butt hurt about me slagging your precious so-called greatest country in the whole big wide world really really really but you'll either get over it, or not.
No place is perfect Louis. Where I have lived for the past 18 years is perfect for me. Most DUHmericans can't live here very long. Its too free for them. It doesn't have the structure, rules, regulations and in your face enforcement to satisfy their need to be dominated and coddled by the state.
Have a great DUHmerican day now! Mind the gap between train and platform. BUH-Bye.  
EXPAT Added Apr 4, 2017 - 1:59pm
Yes Louis; "The Times they are a changing". But abortion has not changed, except to intensify. As more women think they have the freedom of a man, the more unwanted pregnancies occur.
It is the same old result. Women of means can end a fertilization with an office visit to a trusted physician, or an 8 hour flight. These are a closely kept secret, so nobody knows how many actual abortions are performed.
But the poor still have the burden of spending 18 years caring for a child, or a lifetime caring for a disabled child.
Most can find help, thanks to Roe V. Wade, but there is a concerted effort to end that relief called right to life. It is not the mother who has a right to life, in their mind, it is a group of cells without a brain that has a right to life.
They don't provide means to care for that life, only pass laws that force the woman into involuntary servitude.
Dr. Rupert Green Added Apr 4, 2017 - 2:48pm
Enter your comment here...
Dr. Rupert Green Added Apr 4, 2017 - 2:50pm
Established law had marriage between a man and a Woman only.  Should we favor established law instead of stirring up a thorny and contentious matter?
Why are you so scared of debate on contentious issues?  Are we too brittle and frail to handle such important discussions?  Should we cower and hide from difficult topics?
Established law set Blacks as slaves, should we have stuck to established law?
Established law segregated schools and kept women from voting and let's not forget that Roe - v - Wade was itself challenging established laws so I simply do not understand why you would question the need and desire to challenge ourselves on important topics.   
It is in human nature to challenge the establishment on many levels, to study and nit-pick and constantly debate and contest the existing order of things."
Dr. Rupert Green Added Apr 4, 2017 - 3:31pm
@ Louis. Did not get to address preceding points. They just jumped on screen. I have this new keyboard that mistypes and misspells. Fingers hurt from typing, so I m using a screwed up soft touch KB.
True, law making same-sex marriage legal was recently established, but you did not choose to open a debate on same. One can assume support for such noble and deserving legislation. You neither chose to debate the laws of racism and segregation, mistreatment of women, and others that you listed. Rather, you chose to advance a discussion on a contentious law that gave women a choice when men in dalliance promised to withdraw and instead clung on when they cummed/came. The laws of enslavement ended with the aid of a civil war. Notwithstanding possible challenges, some laws ended as society changed its values and mores.  It was in 67 that interracial marriages became legal. 
Truly, there are existing laws that appear unfair and in need of challenges. It is unfair for Typhoid Marys to be banned from serving food in schools and restaurants. It is unfair to have laws preventing upstanding Americans men from screwing his horse, cows, or dogs. I am projecting these seemingly asinine views from the point of view of individuals who could be found supporting same.
To tie in your abortion discussion, perhaps in time society will change and grant a man his relation with Mr. Ed, or Typhoid Mary her right to serve food in the White House, but to bring them up at this time will be contentious as bringing up a subtle call for the repeal of Roe disguised as a historical analysis. 
Steve Bergeron Added Apr 4, 2017 - 4:43pm
Times have indeed changed, but objective truth has not.  That's where the rubber meets the road.  Human life is, indeed, sacred, from the first moment of conception until death.  
What has changed is the obfuscation about human life, when it begins, which humans have rights and which don't, etc.  
Before 1930, the majority of Christian religions taught that artificial contraception was wrong.  Then, at the Lambeth Conference in 1930, the Anglicans said that well, maybe sometimes it was okay.  That opened the dam.  Now pretty much all Christian denominations teach that it's okay.  I believe it is only the Catholic Church that still holds that it's wrong.
So, what's wrong with artificial birth control, and how does it relate to abortion?  Acceptance of artificial birth control fundamentally changes the meaning of the primary purpose of sex from creation of new life to "my pleasure."  That opened Pandora's box.  It encouraged an astronomic increase in divorce, infidelity, homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia, to name a few immoral things that have undermined our society.  So, why?  What's the common thread in all these evils?  The notion that we humans are the author of life, that we should determine when life begins and how it ends, not God.  Add to that the infiltration of our colleges and universities by atheistic Marxists, whose objective is to undermine and destroy the faith of all students and make them good "wards of the state."  The state becomes the new religion.  And we see this in spades!  They also infiltrated the national media, most of whom are unabashed nothing more now than a Marxist propaganda machine.  And finally, these atheistic Marxists now control the Democratic party and have great influence in the Republican party.  This could only be possible if people had no idea of the horrible history of Marxism on societies.  He who is ignorant of history is doomed to repeat it.
The moral demise of a nation always precedes its ultimate demise.
One might ask, how could the Germans put up with the horrible persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany?  Why would they stand by and allow such evil to go on?  The same reason we allow abortion and all the other evils to go on.  Lying propaganda ("it's not a human, it's a fetus, etc", apathy, laziness, lack of moral training, etc.
Patrick Writes Added Apr 5, 2017 - 12:35am
People can have whatever opinion they want.
But let me give too much information (which you probably don't want to know). I have probably gone without any protection with my wife 4 or 5 times ever in 12 years. I have 2 kids. That's near at least a 30% rate of conceiving. 
I'd have to assume that many couples are similar (who get married at or before their early 30's). 
So...anybody without 10 or more kids IS using some sort of contraception, am I wrong? Once upon a time, pre-1950's, Catholic families had around 10 kids so clearly they WERE following all the prescriptions of Catholicism. 
But growing up in the 80's, I knew lots of Catholic families who had 2 kids, maybe 3. They must have been using one form of contraception or another. 
I'm just curious the people who say contraception is bad, how many kids do you have? Did you only have relations a handful of times ever with your spouse to produce your 2 or 3 kids? 
While I do believe God wants people to have children, to go forth and multiply.  And he blesses those who do. There is definitely no command that contraception is wrong (the story of Judah's sons...the sin committed there was abusing the Levirate marriage, not necessarily that any contraceptive act is wrong).
Paul tells people to marry so...they can have a bunch of kids?? He says so they don't burn with passion. 
Some people's life circumstances, health, financial situation means they can't have 6-10 kids. I personally think it's ridiculous to tell all people (effectively) that unless they are set up to have 10 kids they can't even have relations with their own spouse. I don't see any scriptural support for this view. And it didn't even come into the Catholic church until the 3rd century with St. Augustine.
Patrick Writes Added Apr 5, 2017 - 1:04am
Probably overshared, but to me, the contraception ban in some Christian denominations is akin to what Jesus said regarding the Pharisees. They tie heavy burdens to people's shoulders that they are not willing to lift a finger to carry themselves.
It's stuff like that, to me, that makes people give up trying to be a Christian. It's hard enough simply abstaining until marriage. On top of that they need to commit to having 25 kids once married???
Dr. Rupert Green Added Apr 5, 2017 - 5:47am
@ Patrick
In some cultures having many children was a life insurance and like having mules to plow the field. Interesting on the belief of the bible/God which once condemned homosexuality now embracing it and then clinging to other things as the obsolete law that changeth not.  
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 5, 2017 - 7:48am
I asked where you lived and you dodged, are you ashamed of where you live?  You are so fast to insult America and it's people you must now live where it is much better so I am asking you where that is?
Scared to answer a basic question?
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 5, 2017 - 7:53am
So it is your believe that all poor Women are helpless and have zero capacity to control their sexual urges?  They all just mindless rut like animals and can't help but to produce millions of unwanted babies?
Sorry buddy but I do not see human beings as weak/mindless animals  just because they are poor.
When two people have high risk sexual relations (anything that can lead to an unwanted pregnancy can transmit diseases too)  it is intentional and a "Choice" to do so.
In short, an abortion is the action taken to avoid taking responsibility for a "choice" already made.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 5, 2017 - 7:58am
Your reply was what exactly?  You claimed we should not discuss this topic because it was contentious, so I offered other contentious topics in the past we had the strength to work on, I see no reason to run away from a topic just because it is a difficult topic, in fact those are exactly the kinds of topic we should be talking about in my opinion.  
What good does it do to only discuss safe topics?
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 5, 2017 - 8:03am
I asked where you lived and you dodged
I didn't Dodge.
Its common knowledge for all but FNG's. (Fucking New Guy) If you're going to try to slag me it will behoove you to do your homework. 
No shame in my game ever. I don't and won't make it easy for you. No reasonable reason to do so. Look it up.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 5, 2017 - 8:13am
Great reply, thanks for sharing your views.  I agree that in general the decline in moral fabric has indeed led to more decline, once you shift morals a little you make the excuse to keep shifting and shifting some more and then a little more until you reach a point where you have no morals.
As an example of lost moral fabric before a fall of a society, pederasty in Rome became normal in the upper political class, in fact a modern Government term "page" for a young intern was used in Roman times to describe a young boy lover the political class and other rich kept.
I will add this though about sexuality, why did God make sex pleasurable if we were not supposed to enjoy it?  I have always asked evolutionists, why is it the human female is the only female animal that maintains enlarged breasts?  The discussions usually get pretty clumsy at that point, lol.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 5, 2017 - 8:22am
I have never seen any widespread claim in my circles or encounters to ban contraception.  Even the Hobby Lobby case had them supporting almost all of the contraception methods Obama demanded, they took exception only to the couple on the list that had the "potential" to kill a fertilized egg. 
I do believe most people use some form of contraception even if it is just the "pull out" method as Donna mentioned earlier. 
This is why I take exception to how the radical left paints all poor people and people of color as brainless animals rutting uncontrollably all the time and needing Government to step in and give away free abortions.  If they were really as out of control as the radical left claims, they would have 10 kids as you point out so why don't they?  Why don't they all have 10 kids each?
Because something has created a limit inside their heads, they accept the fact they can't just make endless numbers of children so they will at some point decide to start using protection.  My question is, how do we get that same decision earlier in their lives?
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 5, 2017 - 8:25am
I asked a question, you refused to answer, that is a dodge.  Yes I am new and asking a question that should be pretty simple to answer but two times now you have flat refused to reply and instead go on a personal attack, why?
You ashamed?
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 5, 2017 - 9:20am
and instead go on a personal attack, why?
Because I don't like the things you said to me. Plain. Simple.
What is my motivation to help an FNG that says terrible things about me personally that are way out of proportion to any general slight you may feel? ZERO. 
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 5, 2017 - 9:36am
Did I hurt your wittle feelings?  Are you all butt hurt over me not showing you the kind of difference you demand?
Help me?  I never asked for any help for you, I was attempting to get to know you and find out more about why you are always trolling, my first question was where do you live, my followup question was to ask what traumatic event you endured to make you hate Americans so much but you would not allow me to get to know you, you just went into attack mode instead, lol.
If you do not want me to understand your point of view that is no skin off my back, I tried to get to know you but you want to be ugly instead so we can leave it at that, lol.
I have made it a policy to never involve my emotions with strangers on the internet, you can't hurt me Jeffry with your nasty words, the most you can get from me is pity.
And you now have that.
Have a nice day  :)
Steve Bergeron Added Apr 5, 2017 - 9:47am
Hey, Louis!
    You asked, "Why did God make sex pleasurable?" Good question.   I think that because if He hadn't, why would we ever bother?  Picture this...  God says, "Go forth and multiply!"  Man responds, "Yuck!  Why?!"  LOL
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 5, 2017 - 9:51am
Man responds, "Yuck!
That right there explains why you're such a miserable guy. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 5, 2017 - 9:54am
Did I hurt your wittle feelings?
No. You DID make slanderous assertions of a very serious nature. 
Aren't you fortunate I never call the authorities for any reason. 
Please do accept my invitation. 
Shove your pity down your copsucking throat. 
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 5, 2017 - 10:09am
Well even without pleasure we still could want to have children, they are truly wonderful parts of life.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 5, 2017 - 10:16am
Why did you attack Steve?  You prove yourself the troll I called you out as.  You demand people be super nice to you or you will get ugly with them but you have no problem at all attacking others.
Sometimes you get the kind of treatment you give others my friend.
Did I slander you?  Only slander if it is not true and from the way you behave like a bully all the time on the internet I believe what I said is 100% accurate, you are a coward who plays big behind the safety of your keyboard.
And guess what, to act on a slander case you would have to come to America, the place you loathe, to take advantage of a system of laws not available at whatever third world country you are most likely living in, cowards like you always end up in 3rd world countries, lol.
I get it, you are hurting, playing the troll is the only way for you to cope, but that does not mean I have to enable you, in America you could get professional help, but you decided to live where you can't get the help you so desperately need and for that I do pity you.
Have a nice day  :)
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 5, 2017 - 10:29am
Weeks, You're the troll. You infer and accuse me of terrible crimes yet you suggest my last comment to Steve the bible thumper was an attack. Typical dogshit stupid, ignorant, illiterate, uninformed and damned proud of it DUHmerican behavior. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 5, 2017 - 10:53am
Why do the Democrats support abortion.  It reduces the damage done by welfare and the cost of welfare that is bankrupting the nation.  I am attaching the comments of a "black economist".  "The Great Society" mid 1960's took an effective program of FDR, "Aid to Dependent Children" that was sold to help widows into a program to help households with absent fathers, illegitimate children.
"Walter E. Williams, a George Mason economist and author of “Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?” is not a fan of the welfare state that exists in the country. In an appearance on Thursday night’s “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network, Williams argued that welfare has done more damage to black society than slavery or Jim Crow.
“[T]he welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery could not have done, the harshest Jim Crow laws and racism could not have done, namely break up the black family,” Williams said. “That is, today, just slightly over 30 percent of black kids live in two parent families. Historically, from 1870s on up to about 1940s, and depending on the city, 75 to 90 percent of black kids lived in two parent families. Illegitimacy rate is 70 percent among blacks where that is unprecedented in our history.”
"The truth is that black female-headed households were just 18 percent of households in 1950, as opposed to about 68 percent today. In fact, from 1890 to 1940, the black marriage rate was slightly higher than that of whites. Even during slavery, when marriage was forbidden for blacks, most black children lived in biological two-parent families. In New York City, in 1925, 85 percent of black households were two-parent households. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were two-parent households.
During the 1960s, devastating nonsense emerged, exemplified by a Johns Hopkins University sociology professor who argued, "It has yet to be shown that the absence of a father was directly responsible for any of the supposed deficiencies of broken homes." The real issue, he went on to say, "is not the lack of male presence but the lack of male income." That suggests marriage and fatherhood can be replaced by a welfare check.
The poverty rate among blacks is 36 percent. Most black poverty is found in female-headed households. The poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994 and is about 8 percent today. The black illegitimacy rate is 75 percent, and in some cities, it's 90 percent. But if that's a legacy of slavery, it must have skipped several generations, because in the 1940s, unwed births hovered around 14 percent.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 5, 2017 - 10:54am
You did attack him, and you can't even admit it, so typical, lol.
What terrible crime did I claim you were guilty of Jeffry?  Can you offer a direct quote from me specifically saying you committed a specific crime?
You are a liar, you make up lies to excuse your own bad behaviors.  You are also a coward who plays big and bad behind the safety of your keyboard hidden away in some backward third world country so you can do the kinds of things not allowed in America, I see you for what you really are Jeffry.
And now I know you pretend to be dying so you can elicit sympathy and pity from the people here so they will look past your troll behavior, how pathetic.
Look, you either behave like a toll looking for excuses to toss hate at people or you do not.  We see clearly you just did it to Steve and he had not said 1 word to you.  You try to justify playing the troll with me because of some imagined accusation I made that never happened but how do you justify attacking Steve?  Because he believes things you do not?
That is why I call you out as a troll and a coward, a brave man would be able to admit you have gone too far and behaving like a troll is wrong, but instead you blame everyone else for what you do.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 5, 2017 - 11:06am
What terrible crime did I claim you were guilty of Jeffry?
"Nope, you would watch and get off on it, that is why you would never report it"
That's the awful crime you accused me of you low life scum sucking rat fuck rat bastard lying larcenous murderous POS mutherfucking pig!
The only good cop has its brains splattered across the front seat of its cop car. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 5, 2017 - 11:07am
I have been in law enforcement Jeffry
Pretty fucking obvious. 
The only good cop has its brains splattered across the front seat of its cop car. Once a cop always a cop. Cops aren't even human as to even want to be a cop proves you have defective DNA. 
For over thirty five years I have successfully lived outside DUHmerica without a single incident with cops. Were I all the awful things you accuse me of I'd have been in lots of trouble with the law on four continents. 
Fuck you cop, you copsuckers twice tried to murder my grandfather for organizing a union, broke into my mother's business and threatened her repeatedly, raped my sister with a night stick on May 4, 1970, lied to cover it up, beat me badly for trying to defend her cracking my skull and breaking my ribs rupturing my spleen and bladder, lied with false charges against me that were later dropped and not one of you scum sucking rat fuck rat bastard lying larcenous murdering POS mutherfucking pigs ever suffered a second for it. 
Fuck you cop. Fuck your demon spawn and every mutherfucker that ever liked you. 
Donna Added Apr 5, 2017 - 11:24am

NOV. 17, 2016 — The majority of America's 73.7 million children under age 18 live in families with two parents (69 percent), according to new statistics released today from the U.S. Census Bureau. This is compared to other types of living arrangements, such as living with grandparents or having a single parent.Nov 17, 2016

The Majority of Children Live With Two Parents, Census Bureau Reports

 Thomas, update you are using a link from 2011. Try staying current, if you are going to post something to add facts. Louis, try this link, it is interesting. The change form then to now.

Louis E Weeks Added Apr 5, 2017 - 11:31am
Saying you would watch a crime and not report it is not a crime, especially in the third world Nations you love to live in, maybe that is why you live there?
You are not an American anymore so American standards of criminal behaviors do you apply to you, it is not like you would ever return to a country where your behaviors would be considered a crime, lol.
I see you are spamming the same nasty commentary, copy/pasting in more than one thread, another  example fo how you only desire to be a troll,  I simply love it when you guys prove me right about you, lol.
Thanks, and have a great day  :)
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 5, 2017 - 11:34am
Several of those studies consider a step-parent as a two parent home when the truth is one of the child's parents do not live there and that lack of a father in the home is causing a lot of problems, such as a girl lacking her father in the home is more likely to commit suicide and end up pregnant and drop out of school.  
Step-parents do not replace actual parents. 
Donna Added Apr 5, 2017 - 12:58pm
Many children living in poverty have parents with some higher education, and many live in two-parent households. While higher parental education decreases the likelihood that a child will live in a low-income or poor household, nearly half of children living in poverty (48 percent) have a parent with at least some college education. Though data shows that children who live with married parents are much less likely to be poor or low income compared to children who live with a single parent, nearly half of children (47 percent) in low-income families and 36 percent of children in poor families (5.5 million) live with married parents.

Read more at:
Louis, i am trying to keep good links and keep this going for the good of all..
Louis,I have many many friends that are step parents, all are involved in the day to day routine of the children's lives,attend school functions, take them to appointments, the dynamic of what was considered a "Normal Family" has changed ,step parents are not a bad thing, and when the original parents do not use the children through the divorce as tools, most come out with the attitude that they will be better off, no more screaming, no fighting all the time etc.
I have one friend, divorced, lives in the apartment off of the garage, she has the house, is remarried they all three parent with no problem.
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 5, 2017 - 1:04pm
Donna, your talking about the full crop of fruits when Walter E. Williams is only taking about blue berries.  So your your statistics do not apply for two reasons as both Louis and Williams have pointed out.    Donna you are looking at a much broader view while Williams has a much narrower view.
Donna Added Apr 5, 2017 - 1:21pm
Steve, would you have all woman who did not want the child, forced into doing so? Then you would what put them in foster care? How many foster care homes do you think that would take? Do you think the person forced to have a baby is actually going to take good care of themselves? Do you think that they would seek a good Dr, and a good program for nutrients? This is my problem with all who preach, that is all you do..then when the baby is here, where are all the men and women who screamed so loud no abortion, ? No where to be found.
Thomas, I was not aware one could provide facts that were to broad. I will find other links and look into them for a simpler answer, and a narrower view.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 5, 2017 - 1:29pm
I never said step-parents were evil or bad, not really sure what made you claim I did?
What I said is they can't replace actual parents, and this is true.  A child needs their parents, not a nanny who lives in the home with them.  And again, your "married" stat does not mean they are married to the child's father or mother.  The stats are misleading because they do not offer the full picture of how it is the broken homes that is causing the harms for most children.
It stands to reason that a single parent is more likely to force their children into poverty then two adults working together in the same household to raise children.
When two adults are separate they both have to pay for homes and cars and electricity and food and home repairs etc.  They are paying twice for living expenses and only then can they provide support for children.  Divorcing or never being together in the first place means the children must live at a lower class than if the parents stayed together.
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 5, 2017 - 1:30pm
Donna You will agree the Walter E. Williams was talking about blacks, his race.  and that your data did not define the race so it is assumed it is very broad.  Donna, Walter E. Williams, said single parent female house holds.    Danna your inclusion of two parents did not separate biological fathers from adopted fathers. 
Donna what is your problem when we present that you are talking about a different subject then Walter E. Williams.
Donna Added Apr 5, 2017 - 1:54pm
I see your point. I wasn't stating you said step parents are bad, just making a point on their behalf. I agree that any single family home will struggle. I also agree with how you pointed this out. 
Thomas, I never said i was not in agreement with Louis, nor did i state that his version was wrong. I was not aware his stats were of only black families. If i am not mistaking that was your addition to the article.Not a part of the original one, so my comments were from the Authors original stance, not on yours.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 5, 2017 - 2:07pm
I think we all need to consider that each time some group releases their statistics they are pushing an agenda.   We need to look past those agendas and look for the bigger picture than the tiny one they are pushing on us.
Do not get me wrong Donna, I am not putting down step-parents or anyone else who works hard caring for children, my Aunt was a lifetime foster parent who adopted many kids that could never find permanent placement.  But no matter how caring and special my Aunt was, she could never replace those kids true parents.  they forever have that cloud hanging over them.
Let me share a true story from my own life.  My oldest Son's best friend growing up was mixed and his mother told him his father was abusive and left them, he never met his father.  Many years later and a lot of issues with school and transitioning into being an adult he is a good man but does have a few issues then just a couple months ago he found his father.  Suddenly he finds out his father was not abusive and his mother moved away because she was scared of losing custody.  He just traveled to see his father for the first time Monday.  To say it was an exciting and scary time for him would not be doing it justice.
How would his life have been different if he had his father in his life?  Maybe he would have finished school or had lees problems?  Maybe not, but there is no refuting the fact that believing his father was an abuser and abandoned him his entire life did have an impact.
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 5, 2017 - 4:19pm
Donna I actually did state an opinion at the beginning, "Why do the Democrats support abortion.  It reduces the damage done by welfare and the cost of welfare that is bankrupting the nation.  I am attaching the comments of a "black economist".   This is a Judeo-Christian nation and as I described in another article "Abortion: The Good Old Days" 3/30/6:03PM  1:25PM 7:31AM  3/29/9:15PM  1:58PM 8:42AM 2/28/1:11PM 8:40AM
This is from the first 8:40AM 
The founders, Jeudo-Christian theology said life starts when the "baby stirs in the womb."  At that point as a human it has all the rights of any other human that walks and talks etc..  This was well before medical technology learned so much.
Roe V Way is actually about three supreme court decisions where the definition of when a fetus becomes a human with all the rights of any other human occurs.  Still that fundimental Jeudo-Christian theology again.  My understanding and I think I recall the result accurately 95%.  The first three months the woman is free to choose and government hase no say.  I think this is the period before "stirring in the womb occurs."   The next months the government has a say and states have various bills for this period.  The Supreme Court define human as starting when a fetus is viable with assistance out side the womb.  That by fact of birth is 22 wks.   From that point on an abortion is a homicide by their ruling.  
My questing to all of you what is acceptable in the middle months.  The court records of the trial of the doctor convicted of murders of a mother and murder of babies is alarming to me.  The state law place the regulation of the clinic under a department of health which also inspects restaurants.   The clinic in question was not inspected for years and did not come in when called by the police raid for drug trafficking, yes that was when the police investigated.  More then two women died in the clinic prior and one resulted in the murder conviction.  Restaurants get a better and more frequent inspection.  And that state from the reporters is not alone.
The doctor was not charged with dozens of more babies deaths because the state statistics would be skewed and reputation destroyed but the evidence was there.  He killed babies after natural births.
So you tell me where do you want the limits.  When is a fetus HUMAN? 
Dr. Rupert Green Added Apr 5, 2017 - 4:30pm
All this abortion debate will be moot when men start getting pregnant.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 5, 2017 - 5:10pm
You make a good point about that case, I believe it was Dr Gosnell, he was severing spinal cords of viable babies, no telling how many babies he had murdered over his lifetime, I would guess thousands.
As you pointed out, his clinic had not received a single inspection in over three years, they showed hair salons that had got more inspection from health departments than this guy so many people speculated that those doing the inspections knew he was dirty and turned a blind eye to him.
I believe they turn a blind eye to these things because of political loyalty.  The news barely covered it but when a radical killed another abortion doctor, Dr. George Tiller, who also performed thousands of late term abortions they covered it constantly and we were still seeing it months later.
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 5, 2017 - 5:58pm
Dr. Rupert, so all the religions of the world have been created with no female input.  Your saying that no female input exist in Judeo-Christian  salvation theology?  Your argument is obscured and you know it and I am not taking the bait.
Donna and Rupert, Obama and the liberals have obviously support Islamic theology.  We both know that our schools that have a majority of liberal leadership and teachers at all levels have make knowing Islam a requirement without similar requirement of the other major religions in many schools.    With this is mind liberals must be suffering from bi-polar issues.   Yes, Donna and Rupert, I am including YOU.
Muslims follow judgmental theology. If I apply judgemental theology to abortion it is totally not allowed and if a woman gets an abortion she is committing murder since the question when life begins was understood when Islam started. At conception. Now when conception started may not have been as precise but today technology has remove all wiggle room.   Jews before exile to Babylon also followed judgemental theology so Christians just read the Old Testament pre exile.  see: 3/30/6:03PM
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 5, 2017 - 6:04pm
The reason I suggest that the cost of welfare effects the liberal's support of abortion is the different rules for abortion in Europe.  The history and nature of government is based on societies built around class.  Austria 12wk, Belgium 12wk, Bulgaria 12wk, Cyprus 29wk, Czech Rep, 12wk, Denmark 12wk, Faroe Isl 16wk, Estonia 12wk, Finland 24wk, France 12wk, Germany 12wk, Greece 12wk, Hungary 12wk, Ireland strict, Italy 12wk, Latvia 12wk, Lithuania 12wk, Luxembourg 12wk, Malta none, Netherlands 13wk, Poland 12wk, Portugal 16wk, Romania 14wk, Slovakia 12wk, Slovenia 10wk, Spain 22wk, Sweden 18wk, and United Kingdom 24wk
Steve Bergeron Added Apr 5, 2017 - 8:33pm
Hey, Donna!
    Happy to see your questions.  Let me share my thoughts, and then you can share yours...
    To answer your questions, let's establish what I think is the proper point of departure for the discussion.  The point of departure is not whether the a woman has to raise a child she doesn't want.  If that was the case, the same logic would allow a woman to murder her already born children if she got tired of them.  I don't think anyone can make a logical argument in favor of abortion that does not equally apply to infanticide. 
A pregnant woman is said to be "with child."  Human life is sacred, and begins at conception.  I don't think we can afford, as a society, to go about choosing which "class" of human beings deserve the right to live or die.  So, before we even begin discussing who or how the child will be reared, we have to realize we are talking about a child, already, not a "potential human being."  Heck, most teenagers I've raised were all "potential human beings." LOL  The question, though, is what to do with that person.  Should we murder everyone on the welfare roles because they may suffer, or be a burden on someone else?  I would vote not.  How 'bout you?  If you've followed the changes in the pro-life/pro-abortion argument over the years, it has changed.  It used to be whether a woman was pregnant with a child. "Oh, it's only a fetus, a mass of unidentifiable tissue."  Then, science started catching up and now we know the baby has it's own DNA, blood type, and by as early as six weeks or before, a heartbeat.  I think we could put a lot more effort into making adoption easier.  That would be an easy, moral choice.
    Every great evil in the world has been paraded under the banner of some purported good.  Hitler wanted to "cleanse the Arian nation" of Jews, in order to make Germany better, safer, stronger, etc.  All of the rhetoric regarding abortion has been very carefully crafted to get those who haven't been educated to think critically, to buy into abortion as if it were some sort of "good."  "Pro-choice" comes to mind.  Everyone is for freedom of choice, yes?!  But, someone who engages in critical thinking, continues the thought..."choice between what?"  Between murdering an unborn human, and allowing them the same rights we have to live!  Oh!  That puts a different light on it doesn't it?  Or, at least it should for anyone who is a moral human being, concerned with equal rights for all.
    A woman has a prima facie right to her body.  I think we can agree on that.  But a baby has an ultima facie right to life! An ultima facie right trumps a prima facie right all day long.
    There is also a very dark background to abortion in this country. There is a very high disproportionate percentage of abortions among black women.  This was by design, I believe.  Even Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, made the statement, "The ruling surprised me. Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."  There is little doubt the "populations we don't want to many of" was a reference to minorities.  This was probably a notion influenced by Margaret Sanger, who was far more up front with trying to promote eugenics to control the black population in her day.  I don't think that's right.  Do you?
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 5, 2017 - 9:56pm
Steve B., salvation theology clearly states that man will sin or at least 99.99999...99% of us will.  Our government uses "common law"  which says that we "sinners" set the standard of what is "reasonable."   You have stated the "judgemental" theology stand on abortion which as the Muslims would say we follow "GOD'S LAW".  Which means what man, the sinner, thinks is irrelevant.   The liberals want us to believe that governments creation of a birth certificate is the point when a fetus or birth baby becomes a "human with rights."  At least that is the conclusion that can be drawn from the actions of the government agencies that enforce the law.  And the criminal trial and the reported action of government that surfaced supports my conclusion.
Dr. Rupert Green Added Apr 5, 2017 - 10:52pm
I thought termination of pregnancy (TOP) was a dead issue. Obviously its alive and kicking, and men are passionate about limiting women's access to TOP. Interestingly, many women are killed by men who accused them of giving away the men's pussy.  Men are indignant that  women, not their wives, are on on TOP.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 6, 2017 - 7:27am
You seem to love to make stupid comments, please stop saying such stupid things on my story.  You seem to be like Jeffry, love to play the troll. 
We are attempting to discuss how times have changed and in case you did not notice, women kill men for straying too, we had a famous story of a woman who cut of a mans penis for fooling around and she did not even get any real punishment for it, can you imagine if a man cut off a woman's tit how society would explode?
Nobody is talking about limiting anything, we are having a theoretical discussion on the various merits of abortions, if you do not with to participate constructively then please stay out of it.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 6, 2017 - 7:32am
Thomas and Steve,
Another thing to consider is in most States, even many of those with very strong pro-abortion laws, also make killing of an unborn baby (without the mother's consent) as a serious crime, some call it a form of murder, others manslaughter, but very serious.
So according to these Governments, we have an unborn child, if the mother wants to kill it then it is okay to kill it, but if someone other than the mother wants to kill it then it is murder or manslaughter?
Same dead baby, but the baby is not a baby under the law if the mother wants it dead?  Seems a little unbalanced to me, the law should be more consistent.
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 6, 2017 - 8:24am
Louis, I think the examples I have presented show I agree about the unbalance.  The Supreme court decision is a standard that seems to be ignored by state and local governments.  It is a statement of biology, before the baby moves ~ before three months and the period where more then 80% of natural miscarriages occur a mother can cause a miscarriage.  That has been possible for centuries and done.  The middle period that the court left open and the final period where a fetus with assistance becomes a baby that can survive outside the womb.  The court said clearly that the fetus is a human with all human rights.  Abortion on demand which is worded to protect the mother is allowed in most states.  Some states have this and partial birth abortions banned, Oxymoron.  
We need a discussion if the liberals will allow it about where between the two end period that is reasonable to say a fetus is human with all the rights.  Louis I agree that courts have defined fetuses as human in this period if the mother is not the person choosing to commit the homicide.  Biologically fetuses are human from conception.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 6, 2017 - 8:36am
Human beings have always renamed fellow humans to make it easier to abuse and kill them.  Hitler did it to make it easier to kill Jews, Americans did it to make it easier to kill and abuse Blacks, and abortion advocates do it to make it easier to kill the unborn.
They are not killing a baby, they are killing a zygote.  They refer to an unborn baby as a parasite, an intruder that needs to be killed, not a human life.
Look at how they frame the debate in "forcing" a woman to carry a baby to term.  Did I or the Government hold these women down and rape them forcing them to conceive a child?  Of course not.  nobody forced these women to make the choice to have high risk sex so if anyone has burdened them with carrying a baby inside them it was them and their intentional actions, not anyone else.
But again, I am not wanting abortion to be banned, I am just wanting to update and modernize the debate to what it should be today, not what it was over 40 years ago.  I know the radical left will never allow the debate to come into the here and now, but I can hope, lol.
Steve Bergeron Added Apr 6, 2017 - 8:54am
Hey, Thomas!
    Good point!  One of the mistakes that we, as a country, made in determining how to handle jurisprudence, was to leave out any consideration of the Natural Law.  Even the Germans, after WWII, used Natural Law in considering some cases.  During Nazi Germany, the Germans had a law on the books that allowed the government to seize any property, business, etc., from a Jew if they left the country for any reason (vacation, to escape, etc.).  After WWII and the demise of the Nazi's, some of these Jewish property owners sued the German government to get their property back.  The German courts, citing Natural Law, sided with the litigants.  If I recall, when jurisprudence for our country was being discussed back in the late 1700's, the question of Natural Law consideration came up and was rejected because the two guys discussing it said they didn't know how to determine Natural Law.  Too bad we didn't have smarter folks making that decision!
     Man-made law must be subjugated to Divine Law and Natural Law.  If any man-made law contradicts either Divine Law or Natural Law, then that law is invalid. Roe vs. Wade is such a law.
     I think that one of the main problems with liberals is that they are trying to live according to the primacy of their autonomous will, rather than the will of God.  The all powerful, "I, me, mine..."  What I want, what I feel, my plans, my goals, my desires, my values, etc.  All these things as their main principles, outside of the broader context of truth.  This logically leads, eventually, to chaos, murder, mayhem, and all other sorts of evils.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 6, 2017 - 9:16am
I have removed your personal attack, I have made it clear that sort of thing is not allowed in my story, I let you get away with it on me and warned you about doing it to others before.
You only play the troll and flat refuse to discuss anything in a rational way.  If you want to change and be a decent person then I welcome your comments, but as long as all you have to offer is hate and name calling you are no longer allowed to post on my stories.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Apr 6, 2017 - 9:18am
Like I said, once a pig always a pig. Fuck you.
Steve Bergeron Added Apr 6, 2017 - 9:33am
    Good job.  It makes it far more pleasant and enjoyable to have intellectual discussions without the low-brows flinging mindless, meaningless rants.  These low-brows demonstrate my  claim that education in our day has been replaced by indoctrination and emotional mantras.  Memorize what we tell you, and you get an "A" and told you're "smart."  No critical thinking skills whatsoever.  
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 6, 2017 - 9:36am
Why do you believe you have a right to play the troll?  You spread all kinds of hate on this site why?  A smart man once told me we can decide to be happy even when facing difficulties.  That also means you can make a choice to be ugly all the time.
I was told a few things about you, an old man who loves his Katoeys, ladyboys who would pass for 12 year old boys in America.  The real reason you left America is becoming very clear Jeffry.
Move along, I do not cower to bullies like you, you have lived as a large man among tiny people you can intimidate.  You look around and everyone is smaller and weaker than you so it makes you feel powerful.  Well all you have are weak words here Jeffry, words that clearly show who you really are, a coward and a bully and I will not put up with you.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 6, 2017 - 9:56am
I do not mind people attacking me that much but when he attacks those like you who are trying to have a productive discussion on my story I feel like I need to defend you guys and defend the free exchange of ideas and concepts.
People like Jeffry are bullies, they want to end open dialog and silence debate with hostility.  Hate is their tool of choice usually because they are too slow witted to block debate any other way.
Please keep up the replies and remember I may not agree with everything people say, but I respect your right and freedom to say it in a productive way.
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 6, 2017 - 12:50pm
I follow the same rules when I host a discussion.   
Steve please note I said common law.  During prohibition they did not bring drinkers of bootleg liquor to a trial because they could not get a conviction.  
If states made abortion totally illegal my guess is that you could not get a conviction of a women that induced a miscarriage in the first 12 wks.   A jury had no problem convicting the abortion doctor sited above and performed late term and partial birth abortions and after birth abortions and had women die at his clinic.
Governments can make something the people think is illegal  not a crime, but they can not convict a person of something the people think is legal.    We have to vote in new representative to make the people's common law the  law.
Steve Bergeron Added Apr 6, 2017 - 1:51pm
Hey, Louis!
    Thanks!  I have no problem with folks not agreeing with me.  I think dialog us great.  We all stand to learn something new, and should be open to change our minds based on new evidence, etc.  But the whole process should be done in an honest, respectful way.  It's usually those who really don't have any answers, or who are incapable of intelligently articulating their position, that are the most disrespectful.
Donna Added Apr 6, 2017 - 1:53pm
So Thomas and Steve as you state that would void Roe VS Wade altogether? Is this what you both would want?
Thomas i am not a liberal, see one assumes that i am female, support abortion, etc. so i must be a liberal..
I am not.
Steve, as you know i am a Pagan, my practice is not like most established religions.So my views are different than a Christian, or Catholic.
Louis, Thank you for sharing a personal story with me. 
I have one for you, and will post it here, give me a few minutes.
Steve Bergeron Added Apr 6, 2017 - 1:58pm
Hey, Thomas!
     I think you have a point.  I think that these days it would be very difficult go gain a conviction of a woman having an abortion.  This is especially true that there is now a pill they can be given that could, ostensibly, used for other, moral purposes.  
    But I think it's important not to have immoral laws on the books.  I think it was Socrates that said that the law does two things for a society.  First, it helps create an orderly society.  Second, it teaches right from wrong.  But, if a law is morally wrong, it can teach wrongly.  I think that's the case with Roe vs. Wade, where people say, "But it's legal!", meaning, it's a law on the books.  Most folks don't know how to tell when a law is moral or not, because they haven't been taught.  We live in an age where the majority of society is afflicted with a "disease" called moral relativism, which blinds people to the objective truths that govern life.
Steve Bergeron Added Apr 6, 2017 - 2:05pm
Hey, Donna!
    Happy to hear from you!  I believe that true morals transcend personal beliefs, regardless of religious belief. I believe they are based on objective truths.  Practice of morals is, of course, personal.  
    In answer to your question, yes, I would repeal Roe vs. Wade.  I think women will still have abortions, and wouldn't be able to be prosecuted because medical technology now allows for a woman to be given a pill that will cause an abortion, and that pill, supposedly, could be used for other, moral purposes.  So, to prove in a court of law that the pill was given strictly for the purpose of an abortion would be extremely hard.
     That being said, I think it is incumbent upon this country to get rid of all immoral laws on the books.  As I told Thomas, above, the law not only helps provide us with an orderly society, it also "teaches" right from wrong.  And if a law is immoral, it can teach people that something horribly immoral, is "okay."  
     Personally, they should structure the adoption laws to make it simpler and easier.  There's way too much red tape these days, as with just about anything in which the government gets involved.
Donna Added Apr 6, 2017 - 3:17pm
Steve, thank you for your honesty.
I have had 2 abortions in my 50 years on this earth. One was due to a rape, and i refused to carry a child i deemed made out of evil. Mind you this was a forceful brutal rape.
The 2nd was due to my own health, it was me or the baby,and was done at the 5th month. I  would never want to see someone go through that unless medically necessary.Honestly i can't see why they would choose that unless due to health reasons.
Now to the debate, i do not think in this day and age, that one can not find a form of birth control that is affordable. 
The day after pill, is pretty much available to anyone who is over 18, in my state anyway.
Steve, morals have never been my thing, not that i am in lack of them, just figured with my families past i am in no position to hold a moral high ground.See my Great Grandmother and her 3 sisters were all hookers during the war, So i feel as though my saying anything regarding morals is rather well i really have no words other than wrong.
It was a money thing, they had none, children to feed and clothe, did what they knew how to make cash and support the family. I hold no grudge, as this is what kept the family together, gramp said most of his friends ended up in foster homes. So if i tend to shy away from morals, and questions this would be why, i feel like i should remain silent. I seem to be the only female voice on here, which is amazing considering the topic.
My take is simple, i do not like government have control over any part of my life, these are personal decisions, left to the male and female involved. Or to the lady if it comes down to just her. My cutoff would be 3 months. Unless the mothers life is in danger. or there is something medically wrong with the child.Why? Well not all rape victims come forward in the first week, and some will not find out they are pregnant until about that time. Also i believe that is enough time for any women to make that choice of yes i am going to be a mom, and take care of my child, or adoption, or no i simply can not have a child, it would not be good for him/her. A lot of reasons for this,lack of job, an addict,in an abusive relationship,etc. 
Ok now you can attack if the need is there, this is an honest opinion and it is simply mine. )0(
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 6, 2017 - 3:38pm
Thank you very much for sharing what must be sensitive information for you no matter how justified or rational those decisions were on paper, the emotional toll is one we can't measure.
I agree with most of your points, we seem to agree on availability of birth control eliminating most excuses for unwanted pregnancies.  I would add that not everyone holds the same value of life as you though and I believe that is what leads to so many women using abortions as their own birth control method.
Morals, I do not agree that you have no place to discuss morals, anyone can share their moral views even if they have very few.  What your family did to survive was what they had to do, it is not like they were robbing banks and selling drugs, personally I may not see prostitution as completely moral, but to society I see no difference between having sex for money and having sex because the guy bought you a great dinner and a movie.  He still spent money to open those legs, lol.
Hell today they have this thing called a "booty call" where girls just let guys have sex and leave, no dinner or dancing or even a conversation, they just have sex and go their separate ways.  Compared to that prostitution at least has a good purpose of feeding your children.
So yes, you can share your morals with me any day and I will gladly consider your point of view.
I also do not want Government involved in abortions, I want them completely out of it.  That includes any funding of groups that provide abortions.  Let the abortion providers stand on their own and let those women who want the abortions pay the full price they cost and leave me and the Government out of it.
Thanks again for your participation in the discussion Donna.
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 6, 2017 - 3:47pm
Donna, I said that I will support the law, Roe v Wade and as it has changed by the one or two other supreme court cases.  I presented the "LAW" as I understand it.  Obviously states and local governments are not enforcing that law.  The case of the abortion doctor is not unique from what the reporters have said.  
Steven if you repeal Roe v Wade then you fall back to the Islamic and Old Testament Judgemental theology where GOD LAW applies and humans receive black and white judgement. (through homsecuals off building, behead christians, burn muslims alive that are from a different sect of islam, etc.  ISIS strictly follows Judgemental theology of the ONE GOD the same GOD as the Old Testament.    
Now Steve read the passages of the bible around the exile to Babylon.  The Jews believe that GOD because humans could not follow his laws GOD gave up on them and took the promise land away.  They developed in Babylon Salvation Theology  (Donna this is for you to).  And Christianity is based on Salvation theology which for the Jews was still attached to much of the Old Testament and only reached Jews.  So Christ broadened Salvation theology to accept anyone, any human.
Donna you will have to ask yourself if Europe laws are reasonable and will give women sufficient time.  The goal is to balance two human lives and achieve the promise of GOD to salvation.   
So the problem Steve is that you how you repeal Roe v Wade for a Judeo-Christian society that does not create a judgemental law.  It must create a salvation based law which means humans make mistakes and God will be the one that sits in judgement.  Who without sin shall cast the first stone? 
I think a good start is the fact that Europe has on average chose 12wks.  These laws in many European countries have been in place to see if it achieves the goal of being a "common law."  It is a starting place that we to can adopt today.  And maybe with education and other advances we can lower the period.  Steve in is a start that liberals can not argue since European countries that have this standard are also liberals.  
Steve Bergeron Added Apr 6, 2017 - 3:52pm
Hey, Donna!
    Thanks for your honesty!  It's refreshing!  That's a sad story with regard to your Great Grandmother, et al.  As the Apostle Paul said when he saw the Romans leading a man off to be executed, "There, but for the grace of God, go I."  None of us know what situation we'll be in, or whether we'll be able to weather the situation.   Each person is different and reacts differently, according to his/her upbringing and life experiences.  We should never condemn someone for their failures, because it could have just as easily been us.  We are all sinners.
    That being said, we still have to admit and stand up for what is morally right.  Why?  Because it affects how the world around is treats us, in the long run.  Yes, there was sin in previous generations, but I think things are much worse now, not just because there are many more people, but because the world in which we live is out of balance with regard to what's right and what's wrong.  When I was growing up, pretty much everyone knew right from wrong, regardless of whether they acted right or not.  We went on vacation for a week, and left our house unlocked, my bicycle in the front yard, etc., with the full expectation that things would be as we left them.  And, they were.  I wouldn't dream of trying that today!  Why?  Because back then, Christendom had a heavy influence on society.  Christendom is defined as the legal, ethical, moral life of a society as influenced by the Gospel ethic.  Today, that's gone.  Christendom is dead.  That makes for a far more dangerous world!  We see an astronomical rise in rape, murders, etc., because there are no objective moral standards by which society lives or even recognizes any longer.  Everyone has been sold the Koolaid of moral relativism.  And from that, we have far more chaos and mayhem in our society.  Far fewer truly happy people.  Far more desperate people.  And I think it'll only get worse, unless somehow, people begin to re-embrace objective morality.  
Objective morality is based on the Natural Law.  If I had to explain natural law in simple terms it would be like this...  Assuming you have a car, that car has an owner's manual.  That manual tells the owner how the car was designed to be operated.  Suppose, one day, the owner of a car said, "You know, in my heart of hearts, I truly believe that my car would run much cheaper and just as well on water."  So, the next time he needed to tank up, he pulled the garden hose over to his car and filled his tank with water.  He was completely sincere and honest about what he believed.  But, what would be the result of his actions, with regard to his car?  He would be a pedestrian!  It wouldn't do any good for him to rant, "Who are they to tell me how to operate MY car?  It's MY car!  It belongs to ME!"  Silly, isn't it?  Well, that owner's manual is the "Natural Law" for that car.  Humans have a similar owner's manual that we call the "Natural Law."  It's how we humans were designed to best operate.  Deviate from that, and there are always problems, sooner or later.  Abortion is contrary to the Natural Law for humans.  A society that allows the most innocent of us, the unborn, to be slaughtered in the place in the universe where they should be the safest, their mothers' wombs, will eventually fail in the most horrific way.  If we can "legally" murder the most innocent of us, then we have no complaint about anyone murdering anyone else, for any reason, at any time.  That's just a logical conclusion.  :)
Donna Added Apr 6, 2017 - 4:38pm
@ Thomas I think Europe is a good lesson for us, and would be a great starting place to revisit when the time comes for the USA to address this issue again. 
@ Steve- I do not think making it illegal will make life better for anyone..i will give this as an example- the lady is pregnant, has a habit of using heroine 5-8 times a day, who do you think would ever adopt or take care of a child like that? Is it fair to bring a child into the world that is already suffering due to the mothers addiction? Too many factors for keeping it legal on some level. In my opinion.
@ Louis,- I have argued that many many times and boy do some women get mad.But if you wine and dine the lady you are in a way  paying for her, maybe not the same as simply saying lets have sex, the cost is? But is essentially the same concept. LOL
I know i have morals, i guess i have always been a little Leary of the topic, i feel i wear my families past. I do not condemn them as most have stated we do what we must, just not a great legacy, in a small town. However i have stood my ground, and said my peace when comments were made, see my grams and Aunts, always went home took care of the family, the ones doing the picking were left behind, the moms, grandmothers, simply left them and the husband for whomever had cash at the time, so at the least i can say what they did was all for the family..who stayed together. 
Steve Bergeron Added Apr 7, 2017 - 8:39am
Hey, Donna!
     I think making abortion illegal will give some children the chance for life.  I would consider that "better," wouldn't you?  :)
     With regard to your example of a mother who is addicted to heroine, what's the difference between killing her child in her womb or killing her child already born, other than the notion that some people (the unborn) do not have the right to life?  I don't see any difference.  A child is a child is a child.  Either all human life is sacred, nor no human life is sacred.  We must make a choice.
     But, I don't think repealing Roe vs. Wade would stop abortion.  Medical technology has made it now, that it would be incredibly harder to prove abortion in a court of law.  
     That being said, we have to have laws that are valid and do not contradict Natural Law.  We need to be a moral, upright nation.  Not a nation worse than Nazi Germany.
     The moral demise of nation always precedes its ultimate demise.  History has proven this time and again.
Louis E Weeks Added Apr 7, 2017 - 8:58am
I have always said, if a child is not safe in it's mother's womb, where can they be safe?
Thomas Sutrina Added Apr 7, 2017 - 10:29am
The liberals in Europe have destroyed their Judeo-Christian society norms (there about one to two decades ahead of American liberals).  The society of totalitarianism that they follow which is the end result of believing in a master mind and that the master minds make the rules for society.  Which always leads to a class society which have to be totalitarian to maintain.  These societies are self destructive and always collapse.  
What fills the void are societies based on religions that have rules or laws that are fixed and set by someone above us humans.  For Europe Islam has presented itself.  Christianity has with stood the pressures of Islam for centuries, but the European Christian societies have been destroyed from within as it is being destroyed in America by the same theology of socialism.
Abortion is just one battle that christians have lost.  We have lost schools, and public squares and marriage and bathrooms.  Taking them back will be also a slow and step by step process.  Convention of States is needed to rebuild the Constitution of the United States.  The 17th Amendment needs to be repealed.  The 100 yrs history of citizen representative in Congress needs to be re-instated by term limits.  Lobbiest need to be curtailed.  The Founders original concept of the Supreme court needs to be addressed.  This is by term limits and giving the states power to overturn their decisions.  We need Federalism to return, that is the states have a check on the power of the Federal government at all levels.  And within the states we need federalism which means the senate in the states must have representative not elected by the same means as the state house.  Counties elect the state senator for example.