prosperity, peace, love and understanding.
Why do want to destroy the land that most of the world wishes they lived in?

"Killing is not murder"?

What twisted string of NeoCon illogic are you citing for that one?

The NeoCon Righties oppose abortion because it is politically expedient for them to oppose abortion. It gets the Christian Right on their side. You know, the ones that KKKarl Rove referred to as "the kooks"?

In the NeoCon view, the State exists to serve the corporation. Anyone who gets in the way of the State (or the corporation) is a fly to be swatted. This includes the somewhere-between-80,000-and 1.2-million Iraqis who happened to "get in the way" of the NewCon dream experiment in a Free Market Democracy in Iraq. The dream which turned into a nightmare for the Iraqis not wealthy enough to flee to another country.

It never ceases to amaze me that NeoCons and their allies, including the Christian Right, can successfully rationalize the deaths of a large number of live Iraqis while decrying the deaths of embryonic lives in America. My guess is that many of the NeoCons, when faced with Sarah Palin's daughter's predicament, would also resort to abortion to avoid the public "humiliation" that would accompany such an event. Maybe not. but the key is, they have the right to choose for themselves; they can be assured that if they choose abortion that it will be conducted in a proper medical facility, with a minimum of risk to the live patient. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have the correct approach: abortion should be legal, safe...and rare. Increasing teenage awareness of contraception is a major part of keeping abortion rare. As Sarah Palin's daughter proved (and maybe even Caribou Barbie herself as well), just telling teens to "just say no" will not alter the most powerful drive known in human biology.

It is not okay to kill 20 million womb bound babies, but it is okay to kill 1.2 million innocent Iraqis, some small portion of which were also probably womb-bound?

estimates of innocent iraqi deaths as a result of our invasion range from zero (the us army "doesn't do body counts" according to Tommy Franks) to 1.2 million. For sources, just google "Iraq war casualties" and randomly select any 10 results from the first few pages.

So, if we take the median value between zero and 1.2 million, we arrive at 600,000 deaths in Iraq due to US intervention to avert a non-existent "imminent threat." Incidently, this is about the number quoted by the British medical journal Lancet in 2006.

Now, without any hyperbole about wars in France and Italy, are you saying that these 600,000 deaths caused by a US act of foreign policy are morally acceptable? What is the basis for your assertion if you believe that all innocent life is precious and sacred? I am willing to bet that some of the 600,000 vicitms of American aggression were pregnant women. What of the destruction of their fetuses?

has promised to outlaw abortion (interestingly, Chimpy Bush suppoerted a woman's right to choose before he was against it). Not one has proposed legislation to do so.

Any response yet to my inquiry about the moral legitimacy of the deaths of 600,000 Iraqis, some of whom were surely pregnant? No, I didn't think so.

Sure, then we could do away with Congress and the Supreme Court and the President and give every citizen a voice in every issue.

While this would seem to be the ideal, most people don't have the time or inclination to properly research every issue and technology is not sufficiently advanced to secure this type of individual representation.

However, I do look forward to the day when this is possible.
Imagine being able to defund a program based on where i want my taxes to be spent. :)

of the concept of "Separation of Powers."

Here it is, from a civics book written in 1892, entitled, The Civil Government of the United States,", Chapter 40, "The United States Courts:"

Federal Judges.
1. Appointment.--We have previously seen that these officers are appointed by the President and the Senate.
2. Term of Office.--Federal Judges hold their office by Constitutional provision, during good behavior; and this, in most cases, means for life. This is the only department of government where offices are held for so long a term. It was intended that these officers should be wholly independent of the people and of any appointing power, so long as they did not abuse their trust, in order to insure[sic] just and impartial decisions.

If the voters are given their way on issues of deciding if laws are just or unjust, then segregation would have never been overturned in America. The Court is a reflection of the morality of its members. The Warren Court in the 50s and 60s consisted of moral jurists who decided that the words of the Constitution as written in the 1700s and amended in the 1800s clearly stated that "separate but equal" was the wrong interpretation. Unfortunately, a string of appointments by the Bushes has determined that we are back to idealogy as the driving factor in court decisions rather than what the constitution says.