Poll Question:
What political party do you align yourself with and why?

Here's the text of the article:

Pro-life? Look at the fruits
by Dr. Glen Harold Stassen

I am a Christian ethicist, and trained in statistical analysis. I am consistently pro-life. My son David is one witness. For my family, "pro-life" is personal. My wife caught rubella in the eighth week of her pregnancy. We decided not to terminate, to love and raise our baby. David is legally blind and severely handicapped; he also is a blessing to us and to the world.

I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency. There is no single source for this information - federal reports go only to 2000, and many states do not report - but I found enough data to identify trends. My findings are counterintuitive and disturbing.

Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies).

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.

I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).

Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.

How could this be? I see three contributing factors:

First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.

Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of the 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001, and in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.

Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency - with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million - abortion increases.

The U.S. Catholic Bishops warned of this likely outcome if support for families with children was cut back. My wife and I know - as does my son David - that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical insurance, special schooling, and parental employment are crucial for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the Blind, as well as several schools for children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as well. We have two other sons and five grandchildren, and we know that every mother, father, and child needs public and family support.

What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041013#5

It's the article:

Pro-life? Look at the fruits

Three of the reasons I support Kerry:

The presidency is a position that deals with very complex issues.  John Kerry has demonstrated that he has the analytical skills to deal with the details of very complicated topics and to handle the fine lines in a logical way.

The preisdent has a duty to defend the interests of everyday Americans.  John Kerry takes positions that consistently benefit everyday Americans - taxes, healthcare, labor laws etc..  These positions show greater concern for those who are poor and disadvantaged.

The current climate calls for a tremendous grasp of foreign policy.  John Kerry has a strong understanding of working with others and developing allies.  His position leads the US to be stronger in a world that is increasingly globally interdependent.

When politics and religion are mixed too closely there are serious problems.  My religion comes into my decisions, including political ones.  I learn my religion in churches.  However it's my job to put two and two together through prayer and study.  When a church participates in partisan politics or a candidate tries to take advantage of a church to do so it's a serious problem.  No political party or candidate can have a monopoly on a religion's morals and ethics.

NASHVILLE (AP) — The Southern Baptist Convention, a conservative denomination closely aligned with President Bush, said it was offended by the Bush-Cheney campaign's effort to use church rosters for campaign purposes.

"I'm appalled that the Bush-Cheney campaign would intrude on a local congregation in this way," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

"The bottom line is, when a church does it, it's nonpartisan and appropriate. When a campaign does it, it's partisan and inappropriate," he said. "I suspect that this will rub a lot of pastors' fur the wrong way."

The Bush campaign defended a memo in which it sought to mobilize church members by providing church directories to the campaign, arranging for pastors to hold voter-registration drives, and talking to various religious groups about the campaign.

Other religious organizations also criticized the document as inappropriate, suggesting that it could jeopardize churches' tax-exempt status by involving them in partisan politics.

Campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said the document, distributed to campaign staff, was well within the law.

"People of faith have a right to take part in the political process, and we're reaching out to every supporter of President Bush to become involved in the campaign," Stanzel said.

One section of the document lists 22 "coalition coordinator" duties and lays out a timeline for various activities targeting religious voters. By July 31, for example, the coordinator is to:

_Send your church directory to your state Bush-Cheney '04 headquarters or give to a BC04 field representative.

_Identify another conservative church in your community who we can organize for Bush.

_Recruit 5 people in your church to help with the voter registration project.

_Talk to your pastor about holding a citizenship Sunday and voter registration drive.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the effort "is a shameless attempt to misuse and abuse churches for partisan political ends." Lynn said his organization would be "watching closely to see how this plays out in the pews."

The Rev. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, a Washington advocacy group that has been critical of the Christian right, said the document was "totally inappropriate."

"We are alarmed that this initiative by the Bush-Cheney campaign could lure religious organizations and religious leaders into dangerous territory where they risk losing their tax-exempt status and could be violating the law," Gaddy said.

Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said "efforts aimed at transforming houses of worship into political campaign offices stink to high heaven."

None of those groups, however, has been as supportive of the Bush administration as the Nashville-based Southern Baptists.

Bush spoke to the Southern Baptists' recent national convention, by video link, for the third year in a row. Outgoing SBC President Jack Graham called the president "a man of personal faith whose leadership is great for America."

On Friday, Land said: "It's one thing for a church member motivated by exhortations to exercise his Christian citizenship to go out and decide to work on the Bush campaign or the Kerry campaign. It's another and totally inappropriate thing for a political campaign to ask workers who may be church members to provide church member information through the use of directories to solicit partisan support."

I am one who thinks that our country's government depends on the public being honestly educated about current political events. Over the past four years the exact opposite has taken place.

Many Americans support attacking Iraq after believing a series of lies from the Bush Administration. As our source of information about terrorism, war, and foreign policy, the administration encourages a series of misconceptions that lead directly to their unfounded support.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

The report at that link is an interesting study. It demonstrates some grave misconceptions held in this country.

Many people think that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.

A good number have been fooled into thinking we have found stockpiles of WMD in Iraq since the war ended.

Numerous Americans think most people in the world were not opposed to the US going into Iraq even w/o UN approval.

It also shows some interesting facts, like you are much more likely to have these misconceptions if you primarily watch Fox News. However, the more critical and scary fact that it demonstrates is that that you are tremendously more likely to support the war if you have these misconceptions. Duh! Who wouldn't support the President if they thought that Iraq sent people to attack us on September 11th, that Hussein had tons of nuclear warheads, and that the rest of the world is wishing that we'd go in . . . just that pesky UN trying to hold everyone back.

The Iraq war is only one of a long string of deceptions. I cannot vote to reelect a liar into office. These sorts of lies hijack our government and render our democracy ineffective. How can you vote for the best candidate if you're not given the right facts?

The war in Iraq is well on its way to spawning terrorists faster than we're eliminating them.

Section 12.3 of the 9/11 Commission Report says:

"Support for the United States has plummeted. Polls taken in Islamic countries after 9/11 suggested that many or most people thought the United States was doing the right thing in its fight against terrorism; few people saw popular support for al Qaeda; half of those surveyed said that ordinary people had a favorable view of the United States. By 2003, polls showed that "the bottom has fallen out of support for America in most of the Muslim world. Negative views of the U.S. among Muslims, which had been largely limited to countries in the Middle East, have spread.. . . Since last summer, favorable ratings for the U.S. have fallen from 61% to 15% in Indonesia and from 71% to 38% among Muslims in Nigeria.""

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

You've brought up a lot of definitions, but you haven't connected them with the discussion very well.  All the definitions of the words in the scripture do not speak to my question, where does the scripture talk about where your human life begins?  God knowing you before you are formed in the belly is totally different.

You might ask, is there ANY scripture that'd speak to that exact point?  I'd say yes.  Let's look to Genesis 2:5

"the LORD God formed the man [5] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."  This says to me that the point at which you are able to take your first breaths

Also, how has Kerry "betrayed another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty"?

That's exactly the point I made with the earlier article about how Bush has lied to Americans to make them believe that Saddam was involved in the September 11th attacks.

As to why I would stay with the church that I have disagreed with is exactly like the common Republican argument of "if you're unhappy with what's going on in the country, you should move to another country".  These are truly unpatriotic arguments that are meant to "squash intelligent discourse".  As to the church being wrong . . . are you saying you've agreed with everything the church has ever engaged in, say the Crusades for example?

Thanks, 2nd Timothy for answering one of my questions with scripture.  I think that is exactly the type of discourse we need to have.  However I disagree that that scripture in any way says that life begins at conception.  If anything this says that God knows you even before conception.  It does not stipulate that your human life begins when you are conceived.

Calling those who disagree traitors is exactly what I meant by "squashing intelligent discourse".  Hurling insults and labels rather than debating the logic in the issues is exactly what destroys our democracy.

I did indeed read the articles.  Did you look at the websites posted by others?  I found the argument to be flawed.  How many people do you except to die during a Bush reelection vs a Kerry election?  Why would you count an embryo to be a human life?  Do you have some scripture that is behind your thought that an embryo is a human life?

The leaders of the church have been wrong before, I think it's up to all Christians to study the issues, the scripture, and reflect and pray on what you know the facts to be.

If you still believe by voting for Bush you'd be voting for a more moral leader, I don't think you've done a very effective search of these candidates.  Just consider what you typed into to google to find these webpages, "Voting for Kerry is a Sin".  That is the string that's going to get you the most convincing string of arguments to support Kerry.

Bush has been effective in tricking many Americans into believing that which is not true.  Just take a look at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-10-04-alqaeda-saddam_x.htm

Too many Americans have been tricked into believing that Saddam was involved in the attacks of September 11th.  

Similarly, Bush has tricked many into thinking he's going to do something about abortion.  He said something about balancing ethics and science in the second debate.  He's had four years and hasn't really done anything . . . and I don't think Kerry has any big plans on changing abortion rules either.  MAYBE voting for the third candidate mentioned in your article is a more moral vote (I just don't know enough about him) . . . but the argument can't really be made for Bush vs Kerry.

Let's not follow the Bush Administration in trying to squash intelligent discourse.

The debate we're having in this forum isn't because of traitors, but because debate is what makes our democracy great.