Stephen Hook,
In the case of abortion the moral issue will always revolve around the rights of one person over another, until we can grow people in artificial wombs or something. That is once you decide once and for all that a human fetus is the equivilant of a human being. The current law takes a middle ground approach where late term abortions are only allowed under extreme conditions.

I would argue that under any conditions the Mother’s right to self determination should always supercede an unborn human fetuses right to be born. I find it distasteful to say the least, especially in late term cases, but my tastes do not govern what I feel is just.

A possibly illustrative example could be suppose that I was in dire need of a transplant in order to continue living. And suppose that you were the only viable source for whatever that thing I needed was, maybe a liver. Would it be just for the government, or anyone for that matter, to remove your right to choose, and simply strap you down and perform the procedure and send you on your way?

Your burden in such a case would be rather light when compared to a full term pregnancy. The governements case in this example has far more merit than for refusing an abortion. After all I am a fully functional part of our society, am fully potty trained, and am past most of the socially expensive parts of my life already. Regardless of my possible worth to society though is it acceptable to over ride your rights, cut you open, remove part of your body all to sustain my life? I say “no”, it is not, and this would be functionally no different than forcing a woman to bear a child.

I believe he brought up religion because of certain religous groups interference in sexual education courses. Many of these groups have fought tooth and nail to make sex ed courses purely about abstinence, with no discussion of other birth control methods. Although they have also been prominent detractors of abortion funding by our goverments.

You seem to have this idea that respect for human life is a purely Christian idea. As an atheist, I can tell you that I, and many people like myself, have no hope for justice in a society that disregards the rights of those helpless to defend themselves.

I cannot believe that an argument can call upon the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” to defend abortion rights. Abortion is fundamentally disregarding the dignity of humanity. Respect for the human person is the foundation of any just society.

Mr. Anderson, I will be casting my vote for you, but only as a matter of civic duty. I do not agree entirely with any of the candidates our political process presents to me. I hope that you will have a change of heart and come to pursue social justice for even the unborn.

If you cannot provide justice for those who have no voice and no means to defend themselves, you cannot provide justice for anyone. Social justice begins in the womb and then extends to all of life. Life is not just a Christian or Catholic issue, as tacitly implied by the last paragraph being included here. It is about humanity. If helpless human life is not worth protecting in the womb, then none of Rocky’s supposed concerns about providing “basic health care” or concerns about protecting the innocent in warfare really amount to anything. The appalling inconsistency of this position alone ought to steer anyone concerned about justice AWAY from the so-called “Justice Party”.

When I first heard of the Justice Party, it was described to me as “Pro-Life Socialists” I thought, finally, a lefty group I can get behind. Nope, still turning away Catholics. There is no moral choice this year, yet again.

In my view the best means of preventing abortions is to create the socio-economic conditions to ensure that every woman have access to the necessary means to offer her child a healthy and dignified life, before and after birth.

I agree with your stated positions on most issues, and I appreciate your willingness to call out Obama on injustices that very few are even talking about (especially drone strikes and indefinite detentions). Since I share your concern for vulnerable populations both in the US and abroad, I am disappointed that this concern does not in your case extend to this particularly vulnerable stage of human life.

As you may gather from these comments, I believe strongly in the consistent ethic of life. This is not about government promotion of religion (which would also go against my own faith), but about protecting human life and dignity wherever it is dehumanized or threatened by violence. I believe the only true and effective solutions to any conflict, whether among nations or classes or between a woman and her child, are nonviolent ones. I urge you to consider the consistency of this position.

i think this is the most sensible way to handle the issue

I’m very very curious, what do you think about the recently passed H.R. 358 bill?

All I can say is thank you for having such a sensible approach to family planning.