[The Urban Sombrero]

You have mentioned belief in God and in The Bible - Jesus didn't say to make that relationship public "except for...." Someone who struggles with sin, I sympathize with that. But supporting it via the vote or through other manners is unacceptable.

But, there are many people who are pro-life and non-Christian. You are throwing in the "religious right" comments to spin this to try to pin what you call the "religious right" as these backwards zealots. You attempt to try to add weight to the end of your messages with "the framers wouldn't have supported this." Well, I'll tell you one thing. They certainly wouldn't have supported men who are pretending to be women, homosexual "marriages," and losing well over a million babies per year. This wasn't even an issue at the time of the founding fathers, for one thing.

Regarding that quote relating to Sarah Weddington, then what do you think about Norma McCorvey, AKA Jane Roe? She admitted to fabricating a rape case in 1969 to try to get an abortion, and she certainly has a lot to say about Sarah Weddington and how she used McCorvey's situation to try to have the abortion laws overturned. Definitely not as innocent as you're trying to make her seem with that quote.

McCorvey is now a pro-life activist, and also was in a homosexual relationship for 23 years before finding Christ in the mid-1990's.

Now, "how is it defending all abortions to cite an actual statistic?" That was an attempt to spin and lighten down what I said about the country becoming more pro-life even though it didn't have merit on what I mentioned about all the laws passed, etc.

Now, I ask, how is it right to defend that which has led to well over a million deaths per year?

I do not enter a woman's womb. The statistic was a fact, which you chose to spin. The quote is from the oral argument of Roe v. Wade and is not a comment on the speaker. In other places, I have said I believe in the sincerity of those of the religious Right on this forum, and in friendships. I do not share the view that "essential liberty" is bounded by any one religion's or its adherant's convictions. Certainly abortions were not unheard of in the days of Jefferson and company, nor was homosexuality. In my view, to defend essential liberty is not to defend the myriad behaviors and choices that free people might and do make. It is to defend their right to make them. Essential liberty may include more than it did in 1776, but it should never include less. I completely reject the idea that interpreting the Constitution in ways consistent with essential liberty and freedom of conscience is somehow beyond the pale of consideration when thinking about the Framers.