Abortion is a serious matter. It should not be decided upon lightly. It should not be used as a convenient matter of birth control--and few women do. In the end, it is her choice. Hopefully, she will make it only for the right reasons. Her church may attempt to influence that decision, but the government should stay out of it. It's not the government's job to step in and enforce the desires of the churches--on abortion, contraception, divorce, or any other issue. And that's the most important principal of the entire abortion debate. It's not the government's role to enforce by law what the churches can't deliver by faith or to replace churches as the primary moral agents of society. ...

Abortion is a serious matter. It should not be decided upon lightly. It should not be used as a convenient matter of birth control--and few women do. In the end, it is her choice. Hopefully, she will make it only for the right reasons. Her church may attempt to influence that decision, but the government should stay out of it. It's not the government's job to step in and enforce the desires of the churches--on abortion, contraception, divorce, or any other issue. And that's the most important principal of the entire abortion debate. It's not the government's role to enforce by law what the churches can't deliver by faith or to replace churches as the primary moral agents of society. Laws may not be based on religious orthodoxy. Congress should pass no law mandating that Americans obey what is essentially a matter of religious belief.

I appreciate your response to my comment yesterday, and I do agree that the state can't legislate morality, but I'm afraid I must disagree with the notion that the principal of govt. intrusion is the most important issue in the debate. I believe the most important principal is the respect for, and the preservation of innocent human life! This is not just a case of morality, this is the same as taking any other person's life which does come under the government's responsibility to enforce . I know we complicate this issue and there are to many variables thrown in that confuse the issue. Obviously, If the right choices were made up to this point in history, millions of babies would be alive ...

I appreciate your response to my comment yesterday, and I do agree that the state can't legislate morality, but I'm afraid I must disagree with the notion that the principal of govt. intrusion is the most important issue in the debate. I believe the most important principal is the respect for, and the preservation of innocent human life! This is not just a case of morality, this is the same as taking any other person's life which does come under the government's responsibility to enforce . I know we complicate this issue and there are to many variables thrown in that confuse the issue. Obviously, If the right choices were made up to this point in history, millions of babies would be alive as young and older adults today. And speaking of choice, what about the other person involved in this decision ? Because they are not able to voice their choice, does that make them any less involved in the results? We can cloud the issue with science and 21st century reasoning , that this is not a viable human being, even to the point of the brutal practice of partial birth abortion! However, in the Bible, God tells us that He knew us before we were even in the womb. Call me a fanatic, or a backwoods hick, but I believe that if God says this is a human being, then we need to help not only the babies, but also the mothers and their families(yes, even the dads) if they are willing to be responsible. So I think their are more choices than just one. I do think we as the church(body of believers) need to be more involved in helping the women who are facing these situations. I attend Calvary Chapel and they have a program called the "House of Ruth" which has helped many mothers save their babies by providing adoption as a good alternative. I believe all life is sacred. Thank-you for reading this comment on my position.
cdcwilly