I recently heard Jessica Stern on NPR. She's a smart one. You can get that book on CD, by the way.

Why religious fanatics kill? You mean like Paul Hill?

I don't believe anyone has the right to take another person's life, and I think it's especially odious when people do it in the name of religion. By the way, while I find abortion creepy, personally, I defend each woman's right to make the choice, and I don't consider a fetus a person -- a person is somebody who's born and functional outside another person's body...not merely potentially so.

I was discussing this on another board, but I find the pro-life movement, at least in its most visible aspect, to be extremely histrionic, and for the most part ineffectual. If they are against abortion, then they should work on the root of the problem. They should be going after those agencies that glamorize sex (daytime television)and such. If they want to stop abortion, they should be dealing with the issues that prompt people to make those decisions.

They should also be educating young people. Ladies should be instilled with a sense of self-worth and taught not to be pressured into having sex. The "If you love me, you'll have sex with me" has a very simple response, which they should learn: "If you love ME, you'll respect my decision not to have sex."

My young cousin who was fifteen at the time once came to me saying that her boyfriend said he would dump her if she didn't have sex with him. My response would have been, "See ya!" It's just a shame that so many young people think they can only be defined by their choice in signifcant other. Lack of self-esteem.

And young men should be taught to respect the rights of the women they are dating. They have the right to retain their virtue, and a man's value doesn't depend upon whether or not his girlfriend puts out for him.

Yes. Law & Order -- the TRUE opiate of the masses. An excellent idea, Amy, since it terrifies me to think of people (of any religious persuasion) convinced they do a Higher Being's work with explosives. But as much as I am devoted to Law & Order I think instead we should send them all wireless laptops (Mac of course) to speed their enlightenment -- preloaded with advicegoddess as the home page of course.

Patrick, I need you to clarify something. You said that "young men should be taught to respect the rights of the women they are dating. They have the right to retain their virtue."

What about young girls (and not-so-young girls) who want to get exercise their right to get pounded really hard and really deep -- not because they want to define themselves according to their mate's desires, but because they want to get off in a big way? Life is way too short for narrow definitions of virtue, you know.

I'm with Lena. I believe it's called being "sex positive" -- or you can just call me a "godless harlot," which I've had printed on a business card, as in "Amy Alkon, Godless Harlot."

Lena Cuisina: What about young girls (and not-so-young girls) who want to get exercise their right to get pounded really hard and really deep -- not because they want to define themselves according to their mate's desires, but because they want to get off in a big way? Life is way too short for narrow definitions of virtue, you know.

True, but since we're discussing the pro-life movement, given their general "fundy-mentality," I don't think the rights of young girls "to get pounded really hard and deep" would go over too well where they are concerned. I was talking about what THEY should do if THEY are wanting to stop abortion. (My thought is that they should remember that the "no sex before marriage law" was written at a time when people were given in marriage at age 13.)

Anyone who thinks they're going to stop abortion by lecturing young women about the virtues of abstinence is wasting their time, because most people who haven't spent their lives locked up in the torture chamber of some convent generally LIKE to smoosh their genitals around with other people.

Stern makes a good point: fighting the terrorists is more of an educational battle (in the general sense) than a military one. But the solutions are still difficult. It's not easy to get access to the ears of the children who are being taught that God wants them to be intolerant of others (unbelevers out to destroy God's relious gift to mankind) to the point that they become suicide bombers in the name of God.

The US seems to have the rare ability to generate a fair number of godless terrorists. Tim McVey, the Unibomer, the Earth First! 'ers. - we seem to be able to generate some pretty violent godless utopians. Weren't there a bunch of nuts who killed themselves so that space aliens would give them a ride to imortality on a comet some years ago? But her main point is valid - that most voilent terrorists are utopeans doing god's good work on earth. God help us. Or maybe, God, Please just stop helping us. Whatever.

Amy, you said "I don't believe anyone has the right to take another person's life."
Do you mean "anyone" to be singular? Can two or more people acting in concert have the right to take a life? Do the people of a jury have that right? The state of Texas? The US congress? Is there ever a moral right to initiate war?

Please elaborate.

A preventive measure -- such as taking out Osama Bin Laden -- is defense, and will save many lives. A revenge measure -- capital punishment -- is immoral. I don't believe we have the right to take others' lives retributively.

Of course, wouldn't you think that imprisoning Osama (assuming we ever find him) would be preferable to killing him? Once we find him, can't we just capture him? Then, at least, we can try to get information out of him. No point killing people when you can avoid it. Waste of bullets.

(I'm too lazy to move up again and say something meaningful up there, sorry)And no, Ulyyf is NOT swedish, it's what happens when all the good easy names for games are taken and it's the middle of the night. I've grown rather attatched to it, though, while my actual name is a bit bland and boring.