Wealthy Killers - on Abortion

I today read an argument against abortion by a Christian doctor. He called doctors "wealthy killers" of "silently screaming" babies.
It made me think. First, I remember the strongest argument in the area of abortion which I heard during college philosophy classes. A woman said that abortion would be wrong so long as we lived in a society filled with people who could afford to adopt children as an alternative. So, views against abortion would be weaker in a weaker economy. Second, I remember that religion is strongest when an economy is poorest.
So, speaking from a mathematical perspective, religion is inversely proportional to economic health. The strength of pro lifers, a religion-motivated movement, should also be inversely proportional to economic health. I know, it makes my head hurt too.
My extrapolation is thus: So long as America is rich, Christianity will not have the pull it wants, but abortions will remain relatively uncommon. If the economy falters, Christianity would strengthen, but not without limits. There would be a breaking point, after which abortion would become a good idea, especially in the absence of birth control which some sects oppose.

Headline comment

Bush Assails Democrats on War Financing
In a perfect world, that headline would lead to a story where the leader of the free world berated his colleagues for funding war. Bush would be a hero who sought diplomacy, peace and prosperity for all. A man who funded those greater goals directly rather than hoped they would come some indefinite time in the future after a meandering march of military men.
No, in real life Mr. Bush says "pay for this war," even though he it hasn't accomplished any of the promises given before it started, and no one knows when it will end.
I wish the Democrats were the ones trying to fund a war that hadn't happened yet, so it coudl still be stopped before it starts. In a perfect world.

Losing the War on Terror, Iraq or not

"American officials say that the new intelligence is focused on Al Qaeda and points to the prospect that the terrorist network is gaining in strength despite more than five years of a sustained American-led campaign to weaken it." - NY Times today
How can we be winning the war on terror if Al Qaeda and Taliban forces have regrouped and strengthened in Asia? Osama is not directly involved but that's always been his role. Why don't we attack the people who are actually going to attack us, or quit lying to America Mr. Bush. I don't feel safe.