[citation][nom]glennster68[/nom]And equating teaching Creationism in schools to the abortion debate just shows how prejudiced you are against people of faith and their views. Try thinking critically on each topic at hand, without just jumping on the talking points from either side.[/citation]
Your right, I am prejudiced against my tax money being spent in schools so that children can be taught an ancient Hebrew myth on the same level of legitimacy as Darwin's natural selection and the Big Bang Theory. You want me to think critically of each topic. OK.
Creationism (Intelligent Design): the theory that an intelligent designer created everything that we see today, including the universe and all its inhabitants. Most children are taught that things we observe, such as a hammer, are designed with a purpose (to drive in nails.) This assignment of purpose to a design is something that works for man-made objects, but do not hold up to the complexities of life. Extending this illusion that something was "made" so that it could fill a "role" does not explain half the things we see (what are black holes made for? What are tornadoes made for? What is electricity made for? In addition, if you wanted to extend this assignment of purpose to everything, you would eventually have to work your way to God itself. You would have to say that God was designed so that he could design everything else. But that then begs the question, what designed God?
Abortion: Just because I am pro-choice doesn't mean that I would let everyone have an abortion just because they feel like it. When you talk of abortion, you have to be aware that there is a struggle between the rights of the unborn and the rights of the mother. Roe v. Wade affirmed that an unborn fetus is guaranteed constitutional rights. But they also said that the issue of abortion lies within the realm of "privacy" in which the government can not interfere unless either's rights are being violated (same goes for marriage, domestic abuse would warrant intervention.) If a consensual pregnancy were to take an unexpected turn for the worst and it was likely that the health of the fetus would affect the health of the mother, you have to decide whose rights take precedence in this case, no matter which side you argue. If your pro-life, then you say that the fetus' rights are more important and that you do not have the ability to infringe those rights to abort it. However, I believe that the rights of the mother take precedence when her life is threatened by the health of the fetus. Also, in the case of rape and incest, you must be truly Christian if you believe that someone should shoulder the burden of a pregnancy that they themselves never agreed to.
Is that enough thinking for you?