Am I the only one who thinks the baby girl in the photo with this article is so incredibly sweet, precious, and beautiful - I'd take her in half a heartbeat!

Many Christians would rather abort a child if it had a gay gene, then let it live.

Though extreme poverty and poor law enforcement are primarily to blame for child sex trafficking in Cambodia, I think the Cambodian people's casual attitudes toward sexual predation also contribute to the problem. Cambodians generally look up to foreigners, especially Westerners, as wealthy and benevolent. It's unfortunate that some foreigners are in the country to take advantage of children.

Bob, at the risk of prolonging an argument that's not central to this post, the main difference between death from smoking and death from abortion is that people choose to start smoking. A child in the womb has not choice in whether or not his mother decides to abort him. People can also choose to stop smoking. The reason people choose to act on behalf of children is because they cannot speak for themselves. My friends and family who smoke can definitely speak for themselves (and often do, complaining about our state's ban on smoking in public places).

I have to admit that, as a volunteer EMT and a former hospice volunteer, the 'prolife' movement leaves me cold, precisely because of issues like this. You guys wring your hands to make yourselves feel good about banning sex selective abortions. There's virtually NO evidence this takes place in the US today yet you guys are hysterical about it. No doubt because you get to thump yourselves on the back about how moral you are, having found yet ANOTHER reason to control women's sex lives. Yet you do NOTHING about the leading cause of preventable death in the US; cigarette smoking. I take care of people dying every day from this. They die slow, horrible, painful deaths yet the pro-life movement says...nothing. Cigarette manufacturers make billions while 'prolife' politicians like John Boehner take hundreds of thousands of dollars from them. Why aren't these people villified? Why isn't cigarette manufacturing considered lower than pornography? Why are cigarettes openly displayed while skin magazines have covers over them at convenience stores? You people have a sex fetish, plain and simple. If you were TRULY prolife, you'd be saying the rosary at convenience stores where they sell cigarettes and Boehner would be hanging his head in shame. Death by cancer is as much a 'death' as abortion is yet you prolifers simply don't care because it doesn't involve sex.

What would happen, assuming the courts would even uphold this legislative farrago, is that the doctors would have simple for where the women signs it stating that she is not seeking the abortion to select the sex of the foetus. Of course she lies and signs it. It's a silly idea.

A note from the moderator-- Please remember this point from our terms of use: "No Off-topic Discussion. You agree to keep your discussion on-topic according to the subject of the particular article or blog in which you participate and will not attempt to turn the discussion to fit your personal agenda." Several comments (and subsequent responses) were removed for this reason. While we highly encourage discussion and debate, we also strive to keep each post's comments as closely related to the topic about as possible. For more on our terms of use, visit http://www.christianitytoday.org/help/permissionsandprivacy/termsofuse.html

amy, since you obviously don't want to research, I'm quite happy to go point by point. Let's start with his infanticide votes. If I were you, I would not be casting stones, because everything I wrote is easily verifiable. Let's start with the infanticide, and if you will reply without insults we can go step by step over everything, with reliable sources. But you really should learn to research yourself before name-calling, it reflects on you, not me. For those who may try to deny Obama's voting record, using his excuses, please don't bother, his explanations trying to soften it up are don't add up. According to this article here (and many others) http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=28732 here is the info regarding the Obama infanticide votes: "Obama's opposition to bills in the Illinois state Senate from 2001-03 that would have required medical attention be given babies who survive botched abortions and that would have given them legal rights. On several occasions he was the leading opponent. A nurse at Advocate Christ Medical Center in Chicago testified that she saw babies who had survived abortions left unattended to die, but surviving on their own for several hours. It shocked her so much that she is now a pro-life advocate. Ever since he ran for U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2004, Obama has defended his opposition to the various bills by saying he would have supported them if they had contained "neutrality clause" language stating -- as a federal version did -- that the bills would not weaken abortion law. The federal version passed the U.S. House and Senate in 2002 by voice vote, with Senate passage coming unanimously. But public documents released by National Right to Life Aug. 11 show that Obama, as committee chairman in the Illinois Senate in March 2003, voted against a version of the bill (S.B. 1082) that contained a neutrality clause identical to one in the federal bill, leading to its defeat on a 6-4 vote. In fact, the neutrality sentence was copied word for word from the federal bill. National Right to Life charges Obama was part of a "cover-up" and for years has "blatantly misrepresented" the truth. The news is significant not only because it conflicts with Obama's own stated reasoning behind his opposition to the bill, but also because the federal bill had the support of the U.S. Senate's most pro-choice members, including Democrats Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy. Even NARAL Pro-Choice America -- a leading supporter of abortion rights -- didn't oppose it. Pro-lifers charge that if Obama in fact opposed a federal version of the bill on the state level, then he's further to the left on abortion than anyone in Washington. FactCheck.org, a non-partisan website sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, has backed National Right to Life's version of the story, saying that Obama did vote against a bill he said he would have supported. "We now know Barack Obama as state senator voted against identical Born Alive Infants Protection Act legislation that was passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and accepted by even NARAL," the aforementioned nurse, Jill Stanek, wrote on her blog. "For 4 years Barack Obama has misrepresented his vote and must answer for that." Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, called Obama "the most radically pro-choice nominee ever nominated by a major party." "Barack Obama voted against the born alive infants protection act in the Illinois state senate and against the ban on partial-birth abortion, which means that Sen. Obama has never met an abortion he couldn't live with," Land told Baptist Press. In 2004 Obama told the Chicago Tribune he opposed the state bill because it "lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." He has repeated that claim, with his campaign telling The New York Times in an Aug. 6 story that Obama ...

Politics aside, I'm glad gender selection was not available when my mom was pregnant with me. I was the third girl in an Asian country that heavily favors boys. I shudder to think...

I am always irritated by the tendentious rhetoric surrounding a grave matter like abortion. The terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" only inflame passions, producing much heat but little light -- and almost no lucidity. Both sides of the debate need to grow up. JRC