George Washington: "How do you guys think our Constitutional Convention is going so far?"

Thomas Jefferson: "Wonderful! We've protected our right to choose to own slaves, so we will have plenty of free labor to run our plantations and build our infrastructure."

Ben Franklin: "But what about a woman's right to choose?"

George Washington: "They can choose what to cook for supper."

Thomas Jefferson: "They can choose to own slaves."

Ben Franklin: "No. No. That's not what I mean. How about their right to choose to terminate a pregnancy? Aren't we going to include that in our new Constitution?"

George Washington: "Shucks no! We aren't even giving them the right to vote. Besides, this country needs lots of people to tell the slaves what work to do."

Thomas Jefferson: "Gosh. How could they terminate their pregnancy, even if we gave them the Constitutional right to chose to do so? Babies don't want to come out until their time. I mean, a woman can't just reach inside and pull out her baby, can she?"

Ben Franklin: "I can tell you two are not inventors. Someday an inventor, like me, will come up with a way to pull babies out in the early trimesters."

Thomas Jefferson: "Early what?"

George Washington: "Won't that hurt the baby?"

Ben Franklin: "Of course. The baby won't survive. But we are not concerned with babies. It is the woman's right to choose that we need to protect in our Constitution. Besides, it will help us out, too. They will dispose of the babies we create."

Thomas Jefferson: "What is a trimester?"

Ben Franklin: "Forget it Thomas. Listen guys, do we want to protect the woman's right to choose or not?"

George W.: "Maybe we should give women the right to vote first."

Thomas J.: "Slow down, George! Remember, I said all men -- m, e, n -- are created equal."

George W.: "Oh, yeah. Well, I better get home to Martha."

So . . . Did they? Or didn't they? Is the woman's right to choose to kill her unborn baby included in the US Constitution?

1) Which is worse; stabbing babies like King Herod's soldiers did, leaving babies outside to die of exposure like the Romans did, or pulling babies apart in their mother's womb like Americans do?

2) Do American medical doctors have a Constitutional right to kill babies in their mother's womb? (If "yes," where does the US Constitution give medical doctors that right?)

Thanks for moving beyond emotion and thinking about this.

White doctors are killing minorities . . .
Abortion is racism!

Male doctors are killing females . . .
Abortion is against feminism!

Rich doctors are killing poor babies (and charging for it) . . .
Abortion is anti-poor!

The unborn have no say in the matter . . .
Abortion is against choice!

The answer to violence is to speak out boldly in non-violence.

Attention: Blog Recommendation! Blog Recommendation!

I've been inspired by Prisonerofhope and her blog: "a common housewife in the fast lane". She has posted some very interesting research about abortion. To visit her blog find it under "Blogs I like" to the right of this screen and click. I highly recommend it.

Did you hear about the veterinarian who used a very unusual way to euthanize animals? He would strap down a live animal and use a high power vacuum to pull the living animal apart. Investigators found evidence in his clinic that he had killed at least 6 dogs and 11 cats in this unusual fashion. However, the state in which he practiced had no laws that specified the way euthanasia was to be done, so he was not punished.

Should he have been punished? Was what he did cruel to pets?

Maybe you want to throw the book at the veterinarian, but what about all the doctors who kill unborn children with the same method as my imaginary veterinarian? Should they be punished? Is the way they kill unborn babies cruel? Why should something that would be terribly cruel to our pets not also be cruel to our unborn children?

I watched the movie "Cast Away" last night on CBS. It was the second time I have seen it. The first time I failed to notice how out of touch it is with any sense of reality, but it got to me last night.

Tom Hanks' character, Chuck Noland, a FedEx manager, survives a jet airplane crash into the middle of the Pacific Ocean completely unhurt and then drifts on to the beach of a tiny, deserted island. When he wakes up the next morning he acts like he casually drifted away from a cruise ship or something and writes a big "HELP" on the beach in the sand.

He seems completely unaware of the impossible statistical odds against his survival that he overcame. First, it is all but impossible that anyone could survive a jet crash into the ocean, unhurt. Second, if the person did miraculously survive, the odds against there being an island anywhere close by and him drifting to it are slim to none. And the most unrealistic thing of all is that Chuck Noland acts like it is no big deal. He never questions: "How did I survive?" or "Why did I survive?" He never shows the least bit of gratitude or awe at his survival. Now what human being could survive against such tremendous odds and not even seem to notice it?

Chuck then lives four years on the island by himself and only talks to a volleyball. Ok... What human being alone and in fear on an island wouldn't talk to God? Yet Chuck never mentions God, talks to God, or thinks about God. He even prepares to hang himself, with no mention of God. Even when Chuck buries his friend who drifted to the island dead, Chuck has no thought or mention of God.

I mean, come on, they might as well show Chuck going four years without water. That, to me is more believable than four years alone without one word to or about God. Either Hollywood does not know human nature or they are stubbornly politically correct. How else can you explain Chuck's complete lack of interest in or need for God? I have worked personally with 1400 alcoholics and drug addicts, and I don't think I've ever met one who has admitted that he never prays. Even the self-proclaimed atheists do that when in trouble.

Finally, when Chuck experiences a few more miracles (half of a Johnny-on-the-job floats onto the beach, and those things can't even float) and he rafts away to be picked up by a ship several days later, he shows no gratitude to God. And when he gets back to Memphis, all his friends greet him, but no one tells him they have prayed for him -- no one! How realistic is that? We are talking about Memphis, TN -- the Bible Belt -- and no one mentions God or prayer.

is more believable than Chuck Noland's complete neglect of God and spirituality. Give me a break!