Jay Bookman

By hillbilly ragger

June 18, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this

You’re right, the public doesn’t want to ban abortion. In my experience, those who claim to be “anti-abortion” don’t really have the nerve to back up their words with legislation that would criminalize the procedure.

Which is why I think we rational people have chosen the wrong way to frame this debate. It’s not “pro-choice v. anti-choice.” It’s certainly not “pro-abortion v. anti-abortion” either, much as some on the right want to make it so.

No, it’s about “Pro-criminalization v. anti-criminalization.” Framed that way, and thought of in the same way we think about our failures in the war on drugs to eliminate unwanted behavior by criminalizing it, it’s a real loser issue for the right.

By hillbilly ragger

June 18, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this

But to be honest, Jay, in answer to your question “Are those straightforward, accurate and value-free assessments of the positions of McCain and Obama on abortion?”

er, no. They’re accurate, but they’re clearly worded in such a way as to nudge a desired response. To say that somebody “opposes a right” is to assert that such a right exists.

Obviously, there are a lot of hardcores out there who really don’t think a woman’s autonomy extends to the eggs she produces, no matter how little time has elapsed in the gestation process. Once that sucker’s fertilized, dang it, she’s nothing but an incubator for God’s babies!

By jasper

June 18, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this

Prickly issue, no doubt. All I know is that I wake up every day and thank God that my mother had some notion of the sanctity of life when she became pregnant with me out of wedlock.

We’re not doing a good job as a society by making it too easy and convenient to have an abortion. I don’t believe it should be against the law, but it should be hard as hell. As it stands now, its easier to have an abortion than get a bunyon removed.

By Bud Wiser

June 18, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this

Please Jay, write about something new. EVERY attempt at overturning Roe v. Wade has always failed, usually never getting off the ground. Yet, you Democrats always fear the evil Republicans want to turn the clock back to the days of whiskey, coat hangers, and med school abortionists. You never miss an opportunity to hang out old laundry.

Overturn Roe???? Never gonna happen. This is just another thinly disguised attempt by you at stirring up the vitals of your left wing followers. Kind of reminds me of the weekly stories still rehashing how you got ‘cheated’ in the 2000 Presidential election. For the love of God get over it and move into the new century.

By the way Jay, did you read the news report from today that says Mr. Conservation himself, Al ‘Green’ Gore, uses as much energy in his one mansion in Tennessee in one week, as it would take to power about 30 average homes in one month. But since he one of the leftist elitists, my bet is that that news bit will never see the light of day in a column from you or anyone else at your newspaper. How are the print subscriptions doing by the way….still dropping like a barrel over Niagara Falls?

By Bosch

June 18, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this

This is a topic I swore to never debate again, but - anyway -

I hope that our country learned it’s lesson with implementing government control over “moral” issues during Prohibition.

We changed the Constitution to ban something some thought to be immoral, and then we changed our minds after seeing that a few can’t speak for all.

Alcohol was outlawed, but people didn’t stop drinking. Same with drugs - they are illegal, but they don’t disappear.

By hillbilly ragger

June 18, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this

Bud, if what you say is true, why does John McCain have this on his website?

“Overturning Roe v. Wade

“John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

“Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.”

But hey, nice try at changing the topic, I don’t blame you for trying.

By AH

June 18, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this

One day we will have to wake up and have a true conversation about abortion. Many people run the other way as soon as they hear the term uttered, including Jay’s best friend Neil Boortz.

Row v Wade is a perfect example of legislating from the bench and it doesn’t need to be overturned but we do need to actually come up with legislation at the federal level to deal with abortion. Based on R v W there is no “right” to have an abortion it just asserts that we will look the other way. One day we need to put it into federal law that a woman either does or does not have the “right” to have an abortion. If we then choose to allow abortion then limitations and guidelines would need to be established and then states would be allowed to follow them or restrict them further. Until our legislators get the courage to deal with this we will continue having this argument for the next 40 years.

By Doc D.

June 18, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this

Yes, I completely agree that Obama’s mother should have aborted.

What a beautiful choice that would have been!

By JeepersCreepers

June 18, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this

Let’s talke about DDT. Since it has been banned about 2 million people a year die from malaria. The reasons given to ban it are very suspect. I want a re-count on DDT. Hell, we can abort human eggs why are we so worried about bird eggs? DDT DDT DDT DDT DDT DDT DDT DDT DDT DDT DDT

By James

June 18, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

Just couple of things to consider:

1) For millions of people, protecting our unborn children is a one issue voting matter in this campaign just like getting rid of slavery was before the Civil War. The Supreme Court and the majority of Americans were wrong then and they’re wrong now. Slaves were not “property” to be discarded and neither are “unborn American citizens”.

2) If an unborn child is called a “fetus”, what do you call an unbirthed mother? We all know the answer. She’s never more a mother than when that child is in the womb and totally dependent on her.

3) A woman has the right to control her own body but not another person “in” her body.

4) “When you see a friend who is pregnant which of these do you say: a) How are “you” doing? b) How is the “fetus” doing? c) How is the “baby” doing?”

5) “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you.” Jeremiah 1:5

By Californication

June 18, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this

It always seems that abortion is a woman’s choice, why does the male have no input? I do not agree with abortion but because more people do I have to abide by the law. But the man should have some say. Do you remember the slogan; don’t do the crime unless you can do the time. How about don’t have unprotected sex unless you can raise that child! With all the way to prevent unwanted pregnancies it seems like only an idiot could get pregnant “By Accident”

By dbm

June 18, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this

One complication here is that abortion is not the only issue that can come before the Supreme Court.

How easy it is to get an abortion depends on what state you’re in.

By Gandalf, the Grey

June 18, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this

jay, what is your opinion? Oh, wait a minute, no one cares.

By James

June 18, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

To Doc D:

LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!

By Bud Wiser

June 18, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

People that are one-issue voters do not deserve the privilege of voting. They have the right, but do not deserve the privilege. Unlucky it is for us all that the greater masses of folks on the left and the right still exercise that privilege with probably no thought whatsoever on who or what they are voting for. As the pollsters will tell you, 40% of the people will vote Democrat, and 40% will vote Republican, and it matters not what name is on the ballot, because that is their party, and someone has already made up their minds for them. It is the 20% left over that the candidates try to appeal to the most to secure the winning margin, and they will not be swayed because of any one single issue.

Your assessment of the two candidates position on abortion pretty much paints your opinion of who you support, but it is only one brush mark on the canvas of the man we choose to be our next President. The 20 percent will choose, not you alone, but to call it “straightforward, accurate and value free..” might be a stretch.

By Candid Date with the Polls

June 18, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

My fellow voter. If elected, I find myself in need of payment for service[s] to be rendered during my time in office. So, in order to insure your vote, I am willing to tell you precisely what my legal team says that the surveys and focus groups say that I should tell you. As it turns out, these things are the same things that the [Enter party name] been telling you for the last 30 odd years but if you are still willing to buy the crap that they dish out every election cycle, who am I to judge. Thank you and I just want to let you know that I appreciate your confidence in my abilities and that when you elect me I will do everything in my power to deliver on every campaign promise I never made.

Your Truly, [Enter Candidate Name] [Enter Party Name]

By Joe in PA

June 18, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

“Based on R v W there is no “right” to have an abortion it just asserts that we will look the other way. One day we need to put it into federal law that a woman either does or does not have the “right” to have an abortion”

So does that mean that we need to have a law as to whether or not a man can have a vasectomy? Or anyone can have a coronary bypass? Last I checked we don’t define every action possible as legal or illegal or need a “right” to whistle, skip rope, etc., we define the actions that are considered criminal.

R v. W was NOT legislating from the bench it was establishing a long held belief and practice that the government has no business in your non-criminal private actions. Medical procedures are your (and your practitioner’s) business not the government’s.

By CommunistAJC

June 18, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

Jay, So, the majority of America is cool with slaughtering unborn babies? Keep telling yourself that. By the way, you’re a huge hack of a writer.

By hillbilly ragger

June 18, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

James, Jerimiah doesn’t say whether that was first, second, or third trimester. Coulda been third.

Anyway, last I checked we don’t legislate from the Bible, must as you right-wingers would like to see that.

And if you want to go on referring to blastocysts as “unborn children” and revealing to the world that you think birth control pills are “murder”, feel free. More voters for us that way.

By AH

June 18, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

R v W is clearly legislating from the bench.

Women were having abortions, which by the way has been happening for several hundred years. Then some states started to make laws outlawing them. Now if a state wants to make a law that does not affect another state then they are guaranteed that right under the 10th Amendment as long as it does not infringe on another right. This should have been a federal legislation issue but it was punted to the Supreme Court. The SC then said it was unconstitutional to ban abortions because you would have to ask the womans doctor if she had one and that would violation the doctors first amendment right to freedom of speech, or right to keep quite is more appropriate in this instance. (This the gist of R v W not a full explanation of it.)

This is bad policy to base something that is such a big issue in this country on this logic. The US Congress should have created legislation to deal with this issue not ask the SC to cobble together some method to deal with the issue.

Joe in PA - Last time I check your doctor does have to report any and all these other procedures to a government body. If they didn’t then the insurance companies wouldn’t know if you were health or not. (But that is another discussion)

Remember the Constitute is designed to protect the people from the government, not to guaranteed our rights and freedoms we already have all rights and freedoms not restricted by law. People have a valid point to say when does life start and when does that life have full rights and freedoms, that is what one day needs to be decided and quantified. We can’t keep avoiding this by saying R v W already established this.

By james

June 18, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

To Hillbilly Ragger:

So tell me sir - just at what point would YOU say that a “blastocyst” is a baby? 5 months? 6? 7? 8? Just before birth? I would like to know your position.

To Joe in PA:

A woman has the right to control her own body but not another person “in” her body with a separate circulatory system. That’s not quite the same as a vasectomy now is it? Your logic is infantile (no pun intended).

By George Washington

June 18, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

If we men got preggers, abortion would be a sacrement of the church. If we men had monthly cramps, morphine would be an over the counter medicine. but we don’t suffer from either problem, so ladies, just learn to live by our rules….It is for your own good, as defined by the POPE…

By ByteMan

June 18, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

@Communist: no, the majority of America is not cool with slaughtering babies, born or unborn. What they’re also not cool with is criminalizing the doctor-patient relationship and having government intrude in an authoritarian way on this issue. The majority of America is waiting for a third option, yet to be rationally offered. Think “Legal and Rare” and then figure out a way to do it that doesn’t involve the criminal justice system and you’ll get a majority of America to follow you.

Or would you just be more comfortable legislating your moral view of things and putting young women or doctors in jail for doing what was done even before it became legal in all states?

By sane jane

June 18, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

Doc. D’s comment gets a “LOL”?

I thought it was tacky & tasteless.

Why would a pro-lifer “celebrate” any abortion, even the dastardly BHO?

I guess life is supposed to be sacred, unless the fetus grows up to be liberal? Then, by all means, abort away?

Yuck.

By Joe in PA

June 18, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

“To Joe in PA:

A woman has the right to control her own body but not another person “in” her body with a separate circulatory system. That’s not quite the same as a vasectomy now is it? Your logic is infantile (no pun intended).”

Wow you need to take a biology class. A fetus DOES NOT have it’s own circulatory system or it would not be dependent on the umbilical vein from the placenta (the placenta being part of the woman after all).

And the comparison to vasectomy is that you don’t have to have an established right for every action. We have an inherent right to perform any and all non-criminal actions.

A fetus is not another person in her body as established by medicine - and abortion is a medical decision and procedure.

By Jimbo

June 18, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

To sane jane:

Have you ever heard of hyperbole? Get a grip lady!

By RealityKing

June 18, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

“Barack Obama believes that the decision to have an abortion is profoundly difficult for women and families”

Last month an unmarried friend of mine told me his girlfriend was pregnant. I congratulated him, knowingly smiling about the heaven, and hell, that lay ahead for them. Then the other day, I asked him when he was getting married, also knowingly smiling about the heaven, and hell, that lay ahead for him. He told they had aborted the child, her parents even discouraging her having it, “it would ruin her future”.

Add in the other 999,999 abortions commited each year in the US and evidently, most definitly… Barack and Jay are both profoundly naïve about the difficulty our progressive society is having making life and death decisions with their babies.

By Fred

June 18, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

I don’t think any normal person really likes the idea of abortion. I think many of those who support the right would struggle with the exercise of the right, personally. Abortion will probably always be available. I, however, support adoption. I have 2 boys who were born to single mothers. They took the hard road but it gave my boys life. I will always have the deepest respect for these women and their sacrifices. In some cases, there are few alternatives. In most cases, though, there are. I am reluctant to cast stones at a young woman facing the biggest personal crisis of her life. I prefer to offer understanding and life affirming alternatives rather than slogan, accusations and ugly pictures. In light of the human factor, politics is meaningless.

By CommunistAJC

June 18, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

ByteMan, Sure I would. It’s disgusting. Still don’t understand Legal and Rare? Explain that one to me. Because Planned Parenthood is all too eager to abort babies. I’ve been there and seen these people first hand.

By Bosch

June 18, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

I’m assuming too that all the pro-lifers will also agree to all TANF program funding if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned.

And I’m also assuming that all pro-lifers will be filling out applications for several adoptions and to be foster parents.

By Hillbilly Deluxe

June 18, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this

You can argue any point you want until you are blue in the face but one thing you can’t change is if you don’t have an abortion there is over a 99% that a living baby will be born. Your “choice” takes that life away. If you don’t want a baby it’s easy enough to not get pregnant.

By Joe in PA

June 18, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this

“Joe in PA - Last time I check your doctor does have to report any and all these other procedures to a government body. If they didn’t then the insurance companies wouldn’t know if you were health or not. (But that is another discussion)”

I don’t know when you checked, but you don’t have to report medical procedures to the government and never have. Certain conditions determined to be reportable public health issues - STDs, measles, etc. - do have to be reported. Reporting to insurance companies is solely for reimbursement and part of the PRIVATE contract between the patient and that company. It’s not another discussion, it’s a false statement.

By James

June 18, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this

To Joe in PA:

Sorry Joe. It “is” a separate system and only nutrients and oxygen are exchanged through the placenta. The blood circulatory systems are totally separate and if the mother’s blood gets into the baby’s system it can (and does) kill it. Nice try.

Any you positiin on any other medical procedure vs. another living being inside of a mother defies logic.

By sane jane

June 18, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

A blastocyst is a cluster of about 150 cells. Usually happens about Day 5 after insemination. As the blastocyst grows and attaches to the uterine wall, it becomes an embryo.

A blastocyst at “5, 6, 7 months”? No, that’s called a fetus.

It’s disturbing how poorly informed you are about even the most basic aspects of gestation and reproduction.

But no, go ahead & make laws about this stuff.

Glad you’re in charge. I feel safer already.

By hillbilly ragger

June 18, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

James, I believe it’s a baby when it’s born. Don’t you?

That doesn’t mean I don’t have any sympathy for the notion that at some stage of fetal development, there’s a possibility a fetus can feel pain. But during the embryonic stage (i.e., the first trimester) this is not an issue, so I don’t really see what the big deal is.

Obviously, if you want a baby, losing that embryo in those early stages is a personal tragedy. If you don’t, it’s something else, perhaps.

Certainly not for me or you to dictate what that “something else” should be.

By Abomi Nation

June 18, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

From Doc D. and later cheered by James:

Yes, I completely agree that Obama’s mother should have aborted.

That would make a great campaign button to sell over the internet or maybe at the Republican campaign.

Keep it up! The religious nuts have already shown the country how crazy they are. People are leaving the Republican party in droves, keep it up. Be proud.

Lets say it again Yes, I completely agree that Obama’s mother should have aborted.

Yes indeed. A political button. What a great slogan for Republicans. Maybe you can come up with a cute Terry Schiavo button too.

Sorry “God Hates Fg’s” is not available, a church is Kansas has the copyright. But go ahead, be creative!

By Chew

June 18, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

sane jane, Who are you talking to?

By Joe in PA

June 18, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

Sorry James. While the BLOOD is the fetus’ the umbilical vein is part of the placenta which is part of the mother. The placenta is a membrane through which substances are exchanged. I suggest you take courses beyond high school before attempting complex anatomy.

It doesn’t defy logic, they are two separate issues. I know multi-tasking is probably difficult for some.

By James

June 18, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

To sane jane:

You are totally avoiding the point which is what you people usually do. You can call it anything you want along the way. What I want to know from you is at what point do “YOU” think it is wrong to take its life? 5 months? 6? 7? 8? 2 days before birth? 2 hrs. before birth? It’s a simple question. I have the guts to say from life starts at conception. I would like to hear your response. And “I don’t know” is a cop out.

By CommunistAJC

June 18, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

Jay, You remind me a lot of Chris Matthews. You both see everything through a political spectrum instead of seeing things right from wrong. Political points for Dems? Your life must truly suck if you live it in politics. I’d laugh my arse off if you wrote an article saying your kids came to you and told you that they are republicans. That would make my day.

By Curious George

June 18, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

I love the abortion should be “legal and rare” argument (one of Bill Clinton’s favorites). If there’s nothing wrong with it, why should it be rare?

By AH

June 18, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

Joe in PA - You might want to re-read your Hippa agreement with your local hospital. Good, Bad or indifferent your medical history is compiled and report in a non-intrusive way to you states health and human services board, and not just as statistics.

By Fred

June 18, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

Thanks to all for the biology lesson. Adoptive parents get a decent tax credit. I think birth mothers should get one too. When you adopt, everyone wins. The abortion question will not be resolved, let’s reward those who give life at great sacrifice to themselves.

By James

June 18, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

To Hillbilly Ragger:

Just like the others you avoid the question. When is it a baby? Another human being? I want to know what “YOU” believe. Tell me exactly when! 6 months? 7? 8? 9? 2 seconds before birth? Or only after it is born? It’s a simple question.

To Joe in PA:

You crack me up. You just can’t admit that a baby is not part of the mother’s anatomy like a finger.

By Joe in PA

June 18, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this

James - For legal purposes a person is not a person until birth. Therefore the law should use birth as the only clearly defined line for its definitions. Conception doesn’t work because it is quite often unknown. Same with implantation which often results in unknown spontaneous abortion.

It’s up to each individual to decide for themselves where life begins and how they will approach their own actions and decisions.

By sane jane

June 18, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

Chew, I was responding to James @ 10:04.

I’m hardly a medical wonk, but even I have a general idea about the stages of development in pregnancy.

The fact that “blastocyst” seems to be a new word for James sends a chill down my spine, just like it does every time I encounter willful ignorance.

And Jimbo @ 10:13, I understand it was a joke. I just found it tacky.

For some people, this is a serious issue.

For others, it’s chance to make another “joke” about killing Obama.

I guess we should all just lighten up & take racist/bigoted/hateful comments in stride?

Heaven forbid we have a serious conversation about something that doesn’t involve demonizing our opponent…

By Joe in PA

June 18, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

AH - Medical statistics are anonymous and groups of data, not an individual report of what any one person received produced or needed to be produced to the government. Quite different.

By James

June 18, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

To all of you out there who think the baby is just so much tissue and just part of the mother’s anatomy, please tell me why it’s the only part that has it’s own brain waves ?

You can debate all you want but we have the moral high ground just as the anti-slavery people did. A human being is NOT someone else’s property - even the mother’s.

By John

June 18, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this

It should be a states choice to allow or ban abortion - the same with gay marriage - I am tired of the federal government taking control of everything.

On a side note, every woman has a right to not have sex - men and women need to be responsible for their sexual behavior and quit using abortions as a quick solution to cover up something they do not want. If you do not want to have a child, then quit having irresponsible sex!!

By Joe in PA

June 18, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

“To Joe in PA:

You crack me up. You just can’t admit that a baby is not part of the mother’s anatomy like a finger. “

No I understand that it’s an intensely complex issue that’s much more than “LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION” or “THE FETUS IS PART OF HER ANATOMY”. But simple minds usually need simple positions.

By ron

June 18, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

One thing I’ve noticed about the abortion issue is that it gives the Bible thumpers something to focus on.It keeps them occupied to the point where they’re not liable to do any great amount of damage elsewhere.

By jasper

June 18, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

Oh? I’m sorry, this is the kiddie pool, sharp objects not allowed.

Thanks, but I’ll wait for the adult swim.

By sane jane

June 18, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

James, you ask a fair question. And I won’t cop out by saying I don’t know, but I will say something that you may find even more disturbing:

Part of me doesn’t even think life is all that sacred, considering how willingly we all poison ourselves with drugs and booze and saturated fat.

If life were truly sacred, we’d probably do a better job of taking care of ourselves (and our earth) than we do.

Or maybe I’m just scarred from once watching a mother rabbit devour her own young.

Was it Hobbes who said “Life is nasty, brutish, and short”?

By Willie

June 18, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

By Joe in PA June 18, 2008 10:35 AM. Our laws are pretty screwed up because of liberals. If you kill a baby in the wound and you are not the baby making factory (i can not say mother because most mothers would not kill their children)then you get charged with murder! Now explain that one liberal. You guys made the law…you as a liberal can murder because its your body but if I kill it in a traffice accident I could be charged with murder. Hmmm….liberals are just toooooo deeeeep for me.

By Bosch

June 18, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

James,

If abortions were outlawed, you’d have no problem with TANF increases, right?

And, how many foster kids could you accomodate?

How many would you adopt?

Hey, I just had a thought, why don’t you stop blogging, and go on down to your local DFACS office and sign up to be a foster parent?

By Abomi Nation

June 18, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

This blog was not started as a debate about when life starts. It is about “abortion as a campaign issue.”

James has his slogan, “Yes, I completely agree that Obama’s mother should have aborted.

I’m sure God got a chuckle out of that one.

What Would Jesus put on a campaign button, WWJPOACB?

Come on James, be creative!

By sane jane

June 18, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

Is all life sacred, or just the innocent unborn?

Because I’m sensing a lot of bloodlust from otherwise “pro-lifers”.

Abort Obama, God hates F@gs, warmongering, capital punishment…

By Taxpayer

June 18, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

Well, I think that the thought of conception has a right to life. Further, I think that it should be mutually owned as well as mutually beneficial. However, either party shall have complete rights to terminate up to the point when, well you know, it’s too late. Then, I think they’ll have to re-think the situation and maybe even seek out several opinions and counseling before they decide what to do — that is unless they already had a well-conceived plan in the beginning. Then, what’s there to think about other than the usual stuff. You know. Pink or blue. Cigars just are not appropriate anymore. Maybe gift certificates for gasoline would be better. When will we know the sex. The SUSPENSE — it’s not killing me. Of course, things just don’t always work out so well. Sometimes things are not planned. Sometimes, there is no consent — only futile dissent. But, that’s another story. Just one of many possible stories to consider. Black or White. Right or Wrong. If only we could all just be dumb animals and let Nature take her course.

By hillbilly ragger

June 18, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

Jay, by not answering your question, I think the wingnuts have answered your question.

Yes, the prospect of overturning Roe definitely benefits Democrats. More broadly, yes, abortion is a loser issue for Republicans. Unless they can find some way to go to the “partial birth abortion” well again, I suppose.

By Bosch

June 18, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

Hey Abomi Nation,

You’re right - anytime the ugly “A” word is mentioned it turns into a scream fest.

I think Obama’s message is much more realistic than McCain’s on the matter. Nobody likes the thought of an abortion, and he includes something I’ve always thought should be addressed: education, and help for those who need it.

I’ve always had a real problem with any of the big “moral” issues being on my voting ballot - gay marriage too. And it shows the complete hypocrisy of the right to say they are conservative - which includes smaller governement and less government control.

By bubba

June 18, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

Umm if Roe V Wade is overturned, the abortion issue would be returned to the States. Each state would legislate their own laws.

If Alabama wanted to outlaw it, and Mass. wanted to ensure free open with no notification…then so be it. One could travel to a state if they had the need for such services.

Federalism is great….whats wrong with that?

besides even many pro-abortion types agree that Roe V Wade is a poor precedent.

By sane jane

June 18, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

Also, I may be a wacked out liberal, but even I think casual abortions (as a form of birth control) are a travesty.

But on the upside, a woman who exercises such bad judgment would probably be a terribly unfit mother.

So maybe it’s for the best…

But the simple answer, indeed, is “keep it in your pants.”

But we Americans don’t like to be held accountable for our actions, do we?

(see: SUVs/oil dependence)

By Les

June 18, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this

Abortion should only be legal if the child, or one of the prospective fathers, might be Black.

By RealityKing

June 18, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

1,000,000 abortions per year in the US alone, 35 million since 1974. Is it not perfectly clear that something is wrong with our current approach!!??

By The good side

June 18, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this

Wow, It’s amazing some of the statements that are made on this blog!

Obama should have been aborted but yet we have a government that can send our men and women to die! With no clear purpose!

Do you feel the same about them?

Abortion is a tough issue and I am against it, but one thing I have learn in this country is that LAWS do not stop everyone from finding away to do a crime.

I.E. drugs growth, white collar crime, robbery,rape,murder etc I do not know the answer to stoping abortion but I do know that making it a crine will not stop if from happening!

Education on all levels is greatly needed!

Also if you are a person of faith stop posting hateful comments on this blog!

By CommunistAJC

June 18, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this

sane jane, You may be the first sensible lib I’ve ever chatted with.

Les, Wow, you’ve got balls buddy. I’m sure Jay is going to take down your post.

By Fix-It

June 18, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this

Okay, here’s the plan:

1) Back off and allow those men who want to marry men, marry men.

2) Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women.

3) Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies.

4) In three generations, there will be no Democrats!!!

Man, I love it when a plan comes together!

By hillbilly ragger

June 18, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this

Federalism is great… whats wrong with that?

It sounds great—“leave it up to the states.” I’ve been tempted to go along with this line of thought.

But take your MA-AL example. Then consider the likelihood one state like ‘bama will decide to claim an embryo as a citizen at conception, and passes a law banning involuntary transport of that citizen across state lines.

Gets kinda messy then.

By Vacuumed Aspirations

June 18, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this

50 million abortions since RoeVwade. About. That’s more people than live in Iraq. That’s more hamburger than McDonald’s has served. There’s a formula that uses the big neon sign showing the national debt as it spins higher and higher which gives the number of abortion as a F/E ratio, (fetus to earnings ratio of “I’d do it all over again the same, cause it was the right career choice for me at the time” women). The exact number isn’t known. Who cares what the exact number is, right? Eve was evil. Adam was just there. We get the word evil from combining the devil with eve.

This is one of the issues I’m a conservative about. Abortion is clearly murder, mathematically proven, with inescapable logic as proof beyond a shadow of doubt, which surpasses even “reasonable Doubt” standards of proof.

As we cheapen unborn life, we cheapen ourselves. It’s why we dont even acknowledge the collateral damage to civilians in Iraq, or any war. We killed 700 civilians when we invaded Panama and captured Noriega. so what, eh? It’s why we dont hold Ford or GM liable for the death traps they make. Did you know that they invented safety glass before they installed seat belts, because they figured that passengers were going through the windshield, why not make sure their corpses aren’t all cut to pieces and upset their mothers at the wake. We dont value human life at all. We are monsters.

Abortion is one institution that puts the USA right up there with the compassionate, modern cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Shoemaker Levy comet strike on Jupiter in the 90’s showed us what happens to planets what donts live by any moral code. (Jupiter’s gravity devours baby moons regularly in geologic time). That comet wasn’t spotted until 6 months before it hit. What else is out there? We’re sitting ducks, people. We have to live by a moral code. Why cant any of you see that? Why doesn’t somebody do something? And why didn’t somebody name the two or three broken pieces that trailed the main shoemaker levy comet?

I donts be expectin that god be respectin no planet what donts lives by the code.

A Disgrace.

By Abomi Nation

June 18, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

Bosch I agree, nothing gets a reaction like the abortion and gay issues.

But the religious side of the debate loses all creditability in my eyes when they attack on these issues but remain absolutely silent on others.

Yesterday the most popular blog at ajc.com was the one about gay marriage in California. It had all the played out “Adam and Steve,” “the Bible says,” “blah, blah blah,” ad-nauseum.

About a week ago there was a blog about Glenn Richardson’s divorce, yet these bloggers for Jesus were no where to be found. Not one of them sticking up for God declaring that Jesus had called divorce an abomination. Not one reference to the Bible saying “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve along with Heather, who Adam married after he tired of Eve.”

Not one time did any of the Jesus bloggers ask “Whats next,the right to marry and divorce animals.”

Yep, its all political. How else do you explain…Yes, I completely agree that Obama’s mother should have aborted” ???

Btw, because of divorce you may one day hear, “you may lick the bride,” put that on your buttons.

By sane jane

June 18, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

Thanks Comm. I enjoy a good healthy debate, even arguing, but tend to flee when it devolves into a shouting match. Thanks for helping keep things civil.

Even I had to snicker at Les’ post, though. Heh.

Fix-It, your plan is right on the money! And if you’re correct in three generations, so be it. We’ll say we “let the market decide.”

Speaking of “letting the market decide”… 50 million abortions suggests that it has…

By Butcher

June 18, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this

50 million abortions since RoeVwade. About. That’s more people than live in Iraq. That’s more hamburger than McDonald’s has served. There’s a formula that uses the big neon sign showing the national debt as it spins higher and higher which gives the number of abortion as a F/E ratio, (fetus to earnings ratio of “I’d do it all over again the same, cause it was the right career choice for me at the time” women). The exact number isn’t known. Who cares what the exact number is, right? Eve was evil. Adam was just there. We get the word evil from combining the devil with eve.

This is one of the issues I’m a conservative about. Abortion is clearly murder, mathematically proven, with inescapable logic as proof beyond a shadow of doubt, which surpasses even “reasonable Doubt” standards of proof.

As we cheapen unborn life, we cheapen ourselves. It’s why we dont even acknowledge the collateral damage to civilians in Iraq, or any war. We killed 700 civilians when we invaded Panama and captured Noriega. so what, eh? It’s why we dont hold Ford or GM liable for the death traps they make. Did you know that they invented safety glass before they installed seat belts, because they figured that passengers were going through the windshield, why not make sure their corpses aren’t all cut to pieces and upset their mothers at the wake. We dont value human life at all. We are monsters.

Abortion is one institution that puts the USA right up there with the compassionate, modern cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Shoemaker Levy comet strike on Jupiter in the 90’s showed us what happens to planets what donts live by any moral code. ( We devour our babies with as much consideration as Jupiter’s gravity devours it’s baby moons).

That comet wasn’t spotted until 6 months before it hit. What else is out there? We’re sitting ducks, people. We have to live by a moral code. Why cant any of you see that? Why doesn’t somebody do something? And why didn’t somebody name the two or three broken pieces that trailed the main shoemaker levy comet?

I donts be expectin that god be respectin no planet what donts lives by the code.

A Disgrace.

By myron p snout

June 18, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this

It’s funny how we all jump on the abortion issue as an issue about life and death yet we still drive down the street texting someone or looking at the paper. We still fill our kids with fast food and processed food that is full of chemicals. We hand our kids over to strangers for education without taking any responsibility for helping with that process. We sit in front of our TVs getting fat and brain dead. We are not willing to make the hard decisions in life that will keep us healthy and sane. Then we point a finger at our neighbor and yell “Look at what he’s doing!” We are all aborting ourselves slowly but surely. We have the nerve to accuse others of taking human life but we are killing those we accuse in our hearts - Jesus said that, not me. We have a big problem here. The issue is not abortion, it’s us. It is about where our heads and hearts are. Silly talk of science and politics. I’m guilty. Take a number.

By hillbilly ragger

June 18, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this

Anyone else think “Vacuumed Aspirations” @ 11.29 is really Redneck Convert getting extra-creative?

That was a hoot! I ‘specially liked citing Jupiter as an “immoral” planet.

By Thor

June 18, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this

WHO CARES! ANOTHER DIVISIVE SILLY ISSUE OF NO IMPORTANCE CONSIDERING THE CHALLENGES AMERICA FACES TODAY.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

By f(x) = 36x^2

June 18, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

4) In three generations, there will be no Democrats!!!

Except that your “plan” assumes that gay marriage will somehow cause a decrease in the birth rate, as if people who are currently reproducing will stop and take a dip in the gay pool. And it also ignores the fact that abortion is already legal, so…basically, you’re an idiot.

By Bosch

June 18, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

Abomi Nation,

I participated in that blog yesterday.

And, if you’ll notice, I’ve had no response from the pro-lifers in regards to being a foster parent, and supporting TANF increases. Maybe they’re just out to lunch and will respond later.

Speaking of lunch……

By The good side

June 18, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

Vacuum you are right! We need to stand for all laws that are wrong!

Abomi nation!

You are real diapointing it show that you cannot be taken serious regarding an important issue such as abortion.

We need ideas not statements about someone mother should have aborted their child.

Let’s face it! Mr. Obama did not implement the law! Mr. Obama is allowed to have his own opinion regarding abortion even though it is wrong.

By Taxpayer

June 18, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this

Fix-It, your plan got stalled out in Congress. Just thought you might want to know what they say about those best layed plans.

By Fix-It

June 18, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

Hey, f(x) = 36x^2, I am NOT related to you, so please don’t call me by your sir name.

By Abomi Nation

June 18, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this

Your plan is impossible to carry out fix-it.

There will still be Republicans who reproduce, that means there will still be plenty of gays and abortions.

Of course the Republican gays will be different than the well adjusted married Democratic gays.

The Republican gays will be tap dancing in public bathrooms trying to engage in gay sex like the great Republican Senator, Larry ‘Tappity-Tap’ Craig.

The Republicans will be preaching to 30,000,000 people on the sins of abortion, while at the same time doing meth and having sex with male prostitutes. Just like Republican minister, the Rev Haggard.

And the Republican Christian women will do just as they do now, have abortions when they choose to.

By James

June 18, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

To jane and Joe PA:

Sorry, just got back from lunch. Well, well. From your answers it would seem as though since you can’t actually say (legally doesn’t mean in reality) when life begins (and certainly it’s a baby at 5 months) you are willing to sacrifice millions of lives because you “can’t” decide. I really don’t see how you sleep at night but that’s o.k. “One day” we will know for sure and I’m glad I’m erring on the side of caution. May God forgive us.

By Josh

June 18, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this

Abortion is murder plane and simple. Every feetus has a chance at life. From the moment that the fetus is made, it is living.

By Dan

June 18, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this

“Barack Obama believes that the decision to have an abortion is profoundly difficult for women and families, All politics, religion and arguments aside striving to use logic only I have trouble reconciling the above statement, with reality. If a fetus is not a baby why would it be a difficult decision, it is simply a medical procedure, conversly if it is difficult then clearly there is more at stake then a clump of tissue.

By James

June 18, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this

Hey Bosch:

Many pro-lifers adopt but the bottom line is it makes no difference if not one of them did. That’s the responsibility of the parents. The real issue remains it’s the taking of an innocent human life and no “side issue” will negate that. Nice try.

By James

June 18, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this

And now back to the main issue of this affecting the campaign:

1) THIS WILL REMAIN A CAMPAIGN ISSUE. It will not go away - ever! As medical science improves the issue will only get toughter. Does anyone remember the baby that was taken out of the womb recently, operated on, and then put back in? Well, what if after that the father had decided to divorce the mother and then the mother decided to abort the baby? Was it a baby? Or just a fetus and then a baby when it was outside the womb and then a fetus again when it was put back in? God help us.

2) This country tried to “compromise” on the slavery issue to no avail. We tried no new importation of slaves, no slaves in northern states, split the difference in the territories and newly admitted states, and even the Supreme Court then ruled that slaves were property! Guess what? It was ALL OR NOTHING! SLAVE OR FREE !

It’s the same with the abortion issue even though the Supreme Court in 1973 ruled that the baby was in effect “the property of the mother”. You can try to compromise if you like but it won’t work. It’s ALL OR NOTHING! A BABY OR A PIECE OF MEAT!

3) One additional point. For those of you who think we’re not talking about a human life here just what is it? If it’s not a baby what is it? It has to be something. It just can’t be non-existent. The only other thing it could be then is some form of “animal”.

I would love to see some prosecutor with guts go after an abortionist under local animal cruelty laws (the fetus/animal feels pain, etc.). Just take it as far as he can just to see what happens. Maybe people would realize we treat our dogs and frogs better than we do unborn citizens of the United States.

By Shawny

June 18, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this

idiot. of course those positions appear accurate to you, as you are a liberal hack. Say I reword them to the following…’Obama favors allowing irresponsible women to murder unborn children, even late in the term’ and ‘McCain supports the rights of the unborn children’. Would you think that is accurate?

By EW

June 18, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

Wow this got ugly…big shocker there.

For people taking the extreme posts seriously please remember that people hide behind keyboards and will post to incite.

While I believe abortion to be a heinous act, I do not support legislation for or against it from the federal level. Like it or not we are not a democracy, we are a republic consisting of sovereign states. This if Ga wants to ban, so be it. If PA wants to allow, so be it. That is how this country was formed and that is how it should be.

In regards to abortion, it will not be stopped until the hearts of those peforming the procedure and having the procedure are changed. The government will never help that aspect, but people can. Step up and make a difference people.

By hillbilly ragger

June 18, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this

One of these days, Jay, you might consider as a topic for a column the lengths to which the pro-criminalization folks go to associate themselves with the antislavery movement.

Which, of course, is richly ironic because Ground Zero for pro-criminalization is the Deep South, and presumably the forebears of these folk were neck-deep in the slave trade, or at the very least fighting to preserve the Peculiar Institution during the American Civil War.

Of course, it’d make a lot of people REAL MAD, and you wouldn’t want to do that, would you? heh.

By f(x) = 36x^2

June 18, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this

Hey, f(x) = 36x^2, I am NOT related to you, so please don’t call me by your sir name.

First, brain trust, it’s a surname, not a “sir name”. And second - what? Do…you think you somehow just insulted me? Insults have to make sense, you realize?

Like I said…idiot.

By James

June 18, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

To hillbilly ragger:

If you knew your history you would know that the slave trade started and flourished first in the north and that long after it was banned, northern slave trading ships out of N.Y. and Boston continued the trade.

In any case, the two issues are the same. Property rights or civil rights! Deny all you want but you kow your conscience is pricked.

To EW:

Your logic is befuddling! If it’s wrong - it’s wrong. So as long as a democracy votes a certain way then you are o.k. with that. Have you never heard of the Bill of Rights that cross state lines? You would have made a good German citizen in WWII. God help us.

By hillbilly ragger

June 18, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

Yeah, but James, Northerners didn’t flock to preserve the institution of slavery. Not en masse.

Obviously there were some who were plenty ticked off that the ACW was fought at all. Beyond the slavers still plying their trade, I know about the NYC race riots. I know all that happy crap, ‘k pal?

And obviously, there are plenty of Northerners today who are devoutly pro-criminalization, so spare me that.

Point is, I think there’s more than a little bit of guilt, more than a little bit of compensation, going on in this movement.

I’m sure Jay could articulate this better than I’m managing here. For free. How ‘bout it, Jay? Get off yo’ lazy @ss and write somethin’ dangit!

By NCLB

June 18, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

Hey! Perhaps we should try Jay’s Marketing advisors!!

You know, the ones he wants to put into public schools to apply “serious social stigmatisms” on those who get bad grades or drop out of school. Is it not the same concept? I mean, if we put a “serious social stigmatism” on being stupid, isn’t not using protection stupid? And that would certainly carry over to abortion. Stupid is as stupid does..

Of course, we would then have to go one more step and put a “serious social stigmatism” on not taking responsibility for said offspring from said stupid act. Dead beat dads and self aborted mothers are definite no-no’s. As is divorce for that matter, it has been shown to have serious consequences on children. The government can’t have that now can we..

Oh, and let’s not forget all those behavior disorders people seem to keep thinking their born with. Alcoholism, drug abuse, obesity and homosexuality; they too have all been shown to have catastrophic results caused by their lack of self respect and/or responsibility. Social stigmatisms for all!?

My, my…, what traditional thoughts Jay is helping to promote these days…

By James

June 18, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

I have a serious question. Let’s suppose I set up a table on my town’s public square and tied down a big bullfrog speadeagle on it’s back and then slowly started dissecting and pulling it apart “piece by piece” (maybe I even use a little suction hose) until it was dead. Plus I used no anesthetic. How long do you think it would take before the police locked me up for animal cruelty? Yet doctors do that by the thousands everyday and sometimes the babies are way up the chain in development. Do you think the frog feels pain? If not, why lock me up? Do the babies?

Also, does anyone realize out there just how few abortion doctors there are? They are a very rare breed because of the stigma of death. Most doctors refuse to do them because when they saw their first one in medical school they were totally repulsed. If you don’t believe me - just ask one.

By Taxpayer

June 18, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this

I hear that there are cases where the female naturally aborts due to some complication. I wonder how the body makes that determination all on its own like that. Of course, I’m not talking about those cases where the female was using harmful drugs and the body unnaturally rejected the fetus or the cases where the female body was subjected to some sort of trauma that caused a rejection. Those are abortions that fall into the category of “I did bad things with drugs to my body abortion” and “I got hit really hard and it did some major damage abortion”. I’m sure that there are many other kinds of abortions as well. I think they’re all sad. After all, killing is just wrong. Death should be by natural causes.

By James

June 18, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

Hillbilly Ragger:

O.K. Forget the slavery thing. How about the holocaust? To the Germans those poor people (Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, et al) were subhuman - just so much “property”. How could that have happened in a country of so-called civilized people? Because good men stood by and did nothing. We are on a steep slippery slope here. First the unborn, then the old, then the seriously handicapped …….

By hillbilly ragger

June 18, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

James @ 1:16 Deny all you want but you know your conscience is pricked.

Much as I want to make a funny about how I’m dealing with a prick, all right, I do want to address this.

Jane said some of what I feel, I’ll go a little farther. Obviously embryonic life represents something more to most humans, myself included, than mere cells. Anyone who’s either fathered a child or suffered with a wife’s miscarriage knows as much.

What’s repulsive to me is the presumption that you, and others in here, are somehow in a position to tell pregnant women how to feel. Especially repulsive are the cheap-shot rebukes I’ve read here and elsewhere implying that birth control is a no-brainer, that if you’re “stupid” enough to find yourself with an unwanted pregnancy then carrying it to term is a just punishment.

Beyond that, I find the use of scripture to justify all this particularly mystifying. James, you lectured me on history—are you aware of the Southern Baptist Conference’s official position on criminalizing abortion pre- Roe? Did you know that they didn’t actually HAVE a position, so unimportant was the issue at the time?

Forgive me for reading this into it, but I think that the modern pro-criminalization movement was a cynical political alignment between large groups of religious organizations, namely, the SBC and the Roman Catholic Church. It’s been the catalyst for both of these organizations to purge their membership of modernizing forces naturally germinating from within.

Oh, and it gave the Republican Party a built-in base of loyal voters to exploit.

Mostly, that’s what I think about when someone talks up “history”. The history ain’t real pretty; furthermore, there ain’t much in the Bible to support the pro-criminalization side, really.

But back to my conscience. I really do want to respect the devout anti-abortion mindset; I’m not looking to just incite rage here. I think criminalizing abortion is a terrible way to go about reducing its likelihood of happening. What does work is education about birth control, empowering women (and girls—and acknowledging that minors do have sex and not freaking out about it) to make good, responsible decisions about their futures and yeah, not giving us menfolk a free pass on our responsibility to provide for those who count on us.

You want to reduce abortions? Improve the lot of average Americans. That’ll work better than any Draconian restrictions I’ve heard discussed.

By Poly N. Omial

June 18, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

36x^2 = (6x)^2

By Bosch

June 18, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer,

Glad you mentioned that - if you believe in God, there’s really quite no denying that God is the biggest abortionist around.

By f(x) = 36x^2

June 18, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

These topics are so amazing - they bring out the slack-jawed yokels in droves. It’s like…catching stupid people in a barrel.

NC(obviously)LB…it’s “stigma”, not “stigmatism”.

And please share with the class – I’m guessing in your case, second or third grade? – what “catastrophic” results homosexuality has, apart from the hatred that ignorant bigots like you spew out concerning it?

By Token Gringo

June 18, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

Come on Jay! Every election we hear Roe v Wade arguments, who is pro and who is con. In the grand scheme, no politician wants to touch this one with the proverbial 10 ft. pole. All in all, Roe v. Wade will stand as is, no matter who gets elected president. It is too polarizing an issue and I doubt that Congress will approve new justices who are rabidly pro-life anyway. This is just another issue that distracts from the immediate and pressing issues we should have addressed years ago. Sure it makes for great opinion press, but in reality, nothing will change.

By NCLB

June 18, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

Yes f(x) = 36x^2, we are teaching the catastrophic results of homosexuality in 2nd and 3rd grade these days…

hint: It starts with an A.

By NCLB

June 18, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this

And yes.., homosexuality has now been scientifically shown to be a controlable behavior disorder. Are we going to argue with science too!?

http://www.efluxmedia.com/newsFruitFlysHomosexualityTurnedOffAndOnWithDrugs11615.html

By f(x) = 36x^2

June 18, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this

Ah, I see…the tired AIDS argument. Apparently you don’t understand that the contracting of AIDS and all other sexual diseases has nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with unsafe behavior - which can be practiced or not practiced by anyone. You apparently obviously ALSO don’t understand that AIDS affects EVERYONE.

1980 called - it wants its excuse for bigotry back.

By Left of Right

June 18, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

I am still stumped that the same conservatives who become so crocodile teary-eyed at the sanctity of human life only when it comes to abortion seem quite eager to look the other way when it comes to children being shot to death by family firearms, or living in poverty without health care, or innocent people death row because they are the wrong color or have a low IQ, or the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead because we care only about hegemony and their oil. I’m sorry to break it to you, but most well meaning right wingers have been unscrupulously duped into thinking it’s a right to life issue, but it’s really a right to tell women what they can and cannot do issue.

By junior miss

June 18, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

ya know why george bush is so against abortion? ‘cause he’s such a good argument for it!

By Copyleft

June 18, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

It’s true that advances in medical science complicate the issue… but they also offer a possible resolution.

Personally, I eagerly await the day that a rape or incest victim can have the fetus extracted, alive, and put it up for gestation as well as adoption.

Presto! Problem solved. No woman has to carry an unwanted fetus to term, and no zygote is wasted.

Then the only ones complaining will be the religious-reich types who were never that concerned about “the baby” anyway—they just wanted to punish women for having sex.

By f(x) = 36x^2

June 18, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this

You really are a fracking idiot, aren’t you?

Not only do you cite an article that identifies a biological cause for same-sex attraction, you then make the gigantic logical fallacy of assuming that the causes of behavior for a relatively simple organism has anything to do with the behavior of the most incredibly complex organism on the planet.

Please - keep this up. You are really funny! Like Carlin, but hateful!

Oh, and feel free to check out this article for yet another biological cause.

LOL…

By Blind Homer

June 18, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this

If you’re a classic Bushy Republican, where the only life that’s sacred is the unborn, please don’t blog. If you’re a classic pro-choice, anti death penalty Democrat, please don’t blog. If you’re a religious zealot that purports to know the word of god, please don’t blog. Combining logic and ethics it seems that either life is sacred or it’s not. Faith teaches that it is, but the observable evidence and logic demostrate it most certainly is not. Life isn’t sacred because there isn’t any god. And that’s the truth.

By hillbilly ragger

June 18, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this

Thanks, NCLB, for reminding everyone of the real reason religious-righties so loathe the notion of gay marriage.

The last thing you bigots want to see are happy, healthy, monogamous gay folk mainstreamed into society and living to ripe old ages! Why, that’d shoot so many holes in your repulsive “AIDS is GAWDZ punishment for Teh Gai!” argument, wouldn’t it?

And frankly, I’d kinda blotted that sickening argument from my memory for the past couple of months. Shame on me for forgetting.

By James

June 18, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

To Hillbilly Raggler:

I sense some real compassion there on your part and I respect that. However, no matter how tough the issue (history, religion, the agony of the decision, etc., etc.) a life is still a life. We have always prided ourselves in this country on the rights of the individual and have gone to GREAT LENGTHS to protect that. The unborn are no less deserving. So “decriminalize it” if you can or want (no jail time) but STOP it !!! ….. even if it means shutting down every clinic and or pulling every doctor’s license of a doctor who does it!

To Left of Right:

Ah yes, and liberals are always concerned about the lives of murderous terrorists, or murderers on death row, or the killing of innocent little animals or tadpoles or whatever but they think nothing of ripping a 6 month old baby apart in the womb.

And to Bosch & Taxpayer:

Your logic is astounding. Equating natural abortions to clinical abortions is like equating an old person dying in an old folks home of natural causes to someone coming in and giving them a little boost with a shot in the arm because they have become inconvenient and a little too expensive for the monthly budget.

You both would have enjoyed going to the opera in Germany while the holocaust was going on.

By duped

June 18, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

the republican party, the part of small government, what a load of crap. just look at the last 8 years. it’s the party that wants abortion laws, and is against euthanasia, for out-dated alcohol laws and unnecessary proactive spying on it’s own people. their marketing is good and the average moron can be duped into it quite easily when they see Jesus wrapped in an American flag holding a cute wittle baby, but if you care about your country you’ll stop helping the guys that are digging a pit we’re all going to be eventually buried in. forget about the smoke and mirrors and other distractors and look at the real issues, the meat potatoes.

By Bosch

June 18, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this

James,

You should tread lightly when referring to one’s logic - or in your case, lack there of - after all, you can’t even answer a simple question.

If abortion is banned, would you support an increase in TANF funds?

Did you go down to DFACS during your lunch break? Good job. How many foster kids are you bringing home tonight?

By f(x) = 36x^2

June 18, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

Ah yes, and liberals are always concerned about the lives of murderous terrorists, or murderers on death row, or the killing of innocent little animals or tadpoles or whatever but they think nothing of ripping a 6 month old baby apart in the womb.

I’m glad you’ve done so well in the “utter nonsense we like to pin on liberals” class at Hannity U.

Let me just clarify for you.

Liberals do not feel bad for murderers or other violent criminals. We believe that in a civilized society, no matter the provocation, there is no excuse for treating a human being inhumanely when humane treatment is possible.

Liberals do not have sympathy for or fond feelings about terrorists. However, we do believe that we cheapen ourselves as a nation when we resort to torture or other similar tactics - often tactics which are those being used by those we claim to despise.

I eat tadpoles. And most other animals. Except for insects - not a fan.

Most liberals are neither in favor of abortion or unfeeling about those that take place. However, we do not believe that it is the role of government to intrude in the medical decisions of its citizens.

And it is fallacious (suprise, surprise) to use six-month-old fetuses to back up your so-called claim. A tiny fraction of abortions take place that late, and ALL of them are because the life of the mother is at risk. I and every other liberal I know find late-term abortions to be abhorent.

So please, take your ignorant preconceptions and skewed perceptions of what liberals do and do not believe and…well. You know.

P.S. You should be aware of the so-called “Hitler Fallacy”, which you have now used more than once. Let me sum it up (and dumb it down) for you. He who first references Hitler, Nazi Germany, the Holocaust or any other obvious “Hitler” reference to attack another person’s position…LOSES

Loser.

By James

June 18, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this

To Bosch:

Sorry - no more answering your questions until you answer mine. What is the difference between pulling a live frog slowly apart or pulling a baby slowly apart in the womb? I’ll give you a hint - the frogs are probably o.k. right now but at this very second it’s happening to babies in the womb.

By Josh

June 18, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this

People just need to be more responsible and either not have sex, or practice safe sex, birth control, etc. Don’t breed ‘em if you can’t feed ‘em. If you decide to have unprotected sex, you gotta live with the baby for atleast 9 months. And also for the people who say “what if she was raped”…the baby shouldn’t be killed just b/c of that. the baby has every right to live. abortion should be outlawed.

By DaveD

June 18, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this

What GA needs is more abortions. AS theose born and raised get replaced by new people moving in from other states…and we FINALLY stop having dumb people create MORE dummies… we will FINALLY one day start moving up the ladder with test scores, education, etc. These GA born and bred “talibangelicals” need to stop having more retards… It’s quite obvious that dummies only create more dummies. Hell…if you believe in a god, but not the easter bunny.. how smart can you be? ;-)

By James

June 18, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this

To f(x) = 36x^2:

Ah, looks like I struck a nerve.

Will you not answer me one question? Why would I be arrested and go to jail for slowly pulling apart a frog on the town square but not for pulling apart a baby in the womb (make it two months old - that’s about the size of the frog)?

And when you talk about government intruding in the life of citizens - that’s the point. The unborn are citizens too and the most vulnerable needing protection.

By James

June 18, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

Good Grief DaveD. Why not seriously join the debate or don’t take up space.

By Bosch

June 18, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this

James,

There is no difference, they are both reprehensible.

I don’t believe in abortion, and I also do not believe it is the government’s place to tell a woman what she can and can not do. The government has no idea what a woman’s situation is.

Now, I obliged. You do the same.

Would you be in favor of an increase of TANF funds if abortion is banned?

Since you are so dead set against abortion, why are you not a foster parent? Why have you not adopted unwanted children?

By Taxpayer

June 18, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

James,

I don’t care if you choose to agree or disagree, argue, discuss, make a counter-point or whatever. Just don’t insult me with your insinuations regarding Hitler’s clan. Why don’t you let some curious creature, such as a frog or some other helpless creature, take a closer look between those ears of yours, while you’re busy dissecting it, that is.

By june fortson

June 18, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

For all you idiots who think that abortion is too easy, just try it. I was unfortunate enough to get pregnant during menopause. I was over 40 with two grown children. When my Gynocologist told me I was pregnant, I asked if she could recommend a place for an abortion, she consoled me, but, told me she could not ethically refer me to a clinic. She did tell me that at my age being a grandmother was a much better position to be in. I’ve heard soo many people say that women use abortion for birth control. Let me tell you from someone who’s been there, this is not true. Laying on that table, crying, and terrified was the worst experience of my life.

By june fortson

June 18, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this

For all you idiots who think that abortion is too easy, just try it. I was unfortunate enough to get pregnant during menopause. I was over 40 with two grown children. When my Gynocologist told me I was pregnant, I asked if she could recommend a place for an abortion, she consoled me, but, told me she could not ethically refer me to a clinic. She did tell me that at my age being a grandmother was a much better position to be in. I’ve heard soo many people say that women use abortion for birth control. Let me tell you from someone who’s been there, this is not true. Laying on that table, crying, and terrified was the worst experience of my life.

By Bosch

June 18, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this

Josh,

So, I’m sure you are in favor of handing out free birth control - say in high schools, middle schools, health clinics?

By f(x) = 36x^2

June 18, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

Ah, looks like I struck a nerve.

Yes, you struck the “I’m sick to death of idiots deliberately misconstruing liberal philosophy” nerve.

Or do you honestly think that a vehement reaction to being misrepresented, maligned and faintly vilified somehow implies that there is some truth inherent in the misrepresentation or vilification?

And your attempt to make an emotional yet faux-logical point through your frog metaphor is pathetic. For one, no one performs abortions in the public square, and they DO dissect frogs quite legitimately for scientific reasons, all without being arrested.

And, the “unborn” are not, in fact, citizens. The pregnant women carrying said fetuses ARE, however, and the government has no right to take command of their body the moment the become pregnant. What’s next - mandated eating habits, criminalization of alcohol consumption and smoking while pregnant? What other draconian measures do you envision that the government should perpetrate against an adult citizen to “protect” the life of an “unborn” citizen?

Perhaps you should read “The Handmaid’s Tale”.

By Dusty

June 18, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this

This blog wasn’t much to start with and now DavidD comes. Bookman will probably throw in a new subject soon. This one doesn’t do much for liberals… or conservatives for that matter. Much ado about nothng from people who couldn’t have an abortion is they wanted one. MEN!

I think I will decide which men need prostate surgery. Maybe we can make a Stop-a-doc law for such procedures.

By Josh

June 18, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this

june fortson — you now are a murderer and should be in jail for life.

By Bosch

June 18, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this

June,

I’m sorry for your experience. I’ve known several woman who’ve had the same experience. Like sane jane said earlier, those who would use abortion as a form of birth control - either have way too much money, or probably wouldn’t be the best fit for a mom.

I hope you switched gynecologists.

By Dusty

June 18, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

Oh dear, now comes the question @3:17: If you are against abortion why haven’t you adopted unwanted children? That from a liberal, of course.

Do conservatives “score points” if they do? Well, score one for John McCain. While working with a children’s program in Bangledesh led by Mother Teresa, McCain adopted a little girl from there. She became a part of the McCain family.

Sooo..you libs gonna mention the humanity of John McCain in adopting an orphan child? Yes?? Yes?? I’m waiting.

By Abomi Nation

June 18, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

By James

June 18, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

Good Grief DaveD. Why not seriously join the debate or don’t take up space.

Is this the same James that replied to an earlier comment by Doc D “Yes, I completely agree that Obama’s mother should have aborted.” with this comment….

“To Doc D:

LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!

So much for the moral highroad! Tell us more about God James.

By Fix-It

June 18, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

Hey, f(x) = 36x^2, do really have anything to add or are you just here to call people names? I can get that in a grade school play ground, but I guess that is the extent of your education. Please just go back to the play ground.

By Bosch

June 18, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

If you are against abortion, then why haven’t you adopted an unwanted child, or become a foster mother?

Care to actually answer the question instead of making up more of your hypocritical rhetorical bullsh!t?

You know a lot about being a hypocrit, don’t you?

By Bud Wiser

June 18, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this

So does lying on a table crying and terrified absolve one of murder? Or is it a way to try to engender sympathy for a woman who was consumed by an inconvenient truth, and could only resort to legally sanctioned killing of an unborn child to make their life merry again? Maybe if your grown children disappoint you by simply existing, like your unborn child did, perhaps you can write a personal plea to President Obama to allow you to put them to death too.

By RainMan

June 18, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this

Dusty and James should have been aborted. Yeah, Dusty and James, definitely Dusty and James.

By Bud Wiser

June 18, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

It is spelled h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e, not hypocrit; you left off the ‘e’ at the end.

By the way, you have how many adopted or foster children in your home? I must have missed that stat.

Also, I see that earlier you were telling someone to read a book. My suggestion to you is to read the dictionary, or, better still, try and figure out how to use the spell check offered for your personal use here. It would not make you look like the uneducated left wing moron that you appear to be, but simply a left wing moron who can spell.

Have a nice day.

By Dusty

June 18, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this

Dearest Bosch,@3:40

I answer bullsh!t with bullsh!t. So I answer you.

I have never said I was against abortion. I would hope no mother ever has to have one. But, I will leave it to the DOCTOR and the MOTHER, especially if it health related.

I have five children of my own whom I love and cherish. I would wish that for every mother and child.

You only accuse. You don’t answer questions. Yesterday you did a bunch of namecalling to answer questions I asked, just like you are doing now.

I will post whenever, wherever and whatever I wish and you have nothing to do with it. Go try and bully somebody else. You don’t seem to have anything else to do.

By Slotl

June 18, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this

The abortion issue was a “smoke and mirrors” issue presented by the neo-cons. It was an excellent way for the current administration to “cover” their unjustified war. If they could get the American public to focus on the abortion “issue”, then the focus would no longer be on their incompetence.

Abortion is a personal choice. Just remember that unwanted children are the sad cases that end up being abused, neglected, or abandoned by their mothers, or even worse, are now supported by YOUR tax dollars. Without choice, you have a loose, loose situation.

By Blind Homer

June 18, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

Bud Dumber - It’s neither murder nor legally sanctioned killing. It’s a medical procedure that currently isn’t against the law. And there are a lot of considerations besides convenience, especially for pregnancies over 40, which are dangerous for mother and child. And how can you slam Obama in the same breath? Do you prefer McCain so the murders, excuse me, legally sanctioned killings can go on in Iraq?

By Bosch

June 18, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this

Dearest Dusty,

I’m not calling YOU a name, I’m calling what you post names. There’s a difference.

I’ve called myself a hypocrit many times.

Hugs?

Gotta go for the evening.

By bob

June 18, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this

Good discussion by everyone. I’m glad everyone has had a chance to speak. However, there is one group that hasn’t had a chance: the millions of babies that have been aborted.

Oh wait, they can’t say anything, we let them get killed…..

By DaveD

June 18, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this

Bob…good thing they were aborted…think of all the wasted oil if we had to provide for all those little retards….

By James

June 18, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this

O.K. I’m out of here for the day. I really do have to leave the house. I’ve tried my best and I wish you all well - I really do…..and of course the babies. God will judge and I think he will be kind to me for wanting to save the ones he has created.

Take care …………….. Oh, and say a little prayer of thanks tonight that your mother did not abort you.

By theprogressivebigot

June 18, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this

9 AM - 4 PM ???

Evidently all of Jay’s posters are rich elitists too..

By bob

June 18, 2008 4:17 PM | Link to this

When you have convinced yourself that it’s just another “medical procedure” then you have devalued life.

By Dusty

June 18, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this

No Bosch,4:05

You can’t wiggle out of that one. You call me names because I don’t agree with your liberal agenda.

Stop mewling about *hugs”. You can stop the cute back off. Too phony.

By George Washington

June 18, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this

Dirtball, the real tragedy is that your mom didn’t have that abortion when your were at Birth minus six months….The world would indeed be a better place….less dusty anyway….

By George Washington

June 18, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this

According to the pope, everytime I shot my wad and don’t make a baby, I am committing a mortal sin…Every month that my wife has a ripe egg and fails to git it fertilized, we are committing murder….Gee, fer a guy who don’t play the game, old popy sure wants to make all the rules…..that is the problem with religion, they are not happy with imposing their rules on their own true believers, they gotta go git the guv to impose the churches religion on everyone else….there lies revolution…as a matter of fact, come the revolution, I fully expect some of the local churches to try to take on the role of government…when they come a knocking at my door with their bibble and their badges, they are gonna git a real loud suprise….

By George Washington

June 18, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this

Slotl - You are oh so very right…the neocons use abortion to lure the jesus freaks onto their side, neocons could care less about abortion…all they want to do is kill arabs and muslims, steal their land, and blame them for everything…

By NCLB

June 18, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this

Yes f(x) = 36x^2,

Homosexuality has now been shown to be linked to a biological disorder. Indeed a chemical imbalance that can create a behavior disorder we call homosexuality. A behavior disorder that has been shown to be modifiable with drugs. Not related to the brains growth or its life long growth stimuli what so ever.

But it is not my place to care about homosexuality, abortion, drug addiction or obesity. My point was that the MARKETING of “serious social stigma” is not the progressive answer; it’s the old traditional answer. And that today, in our modern progressive society, we must have teacher and school accountability to offset that lack of tradition we see in our public school students and factuality.

By Abomi Nation

June 18, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this

How about you NCLB? Have they come up with a spray for you?

Has anyone come up with a spray that cures your Sexual Orientation Obsession Disorder?

By James

June 18, 2008 6:15 PM | Link to this

O.K. I’m back. To all of my friends I have been debating today, I have a very serious scenario. I really would appreciate your thoughts.

When I was a young man of 19 I found myself in Vietnam as a Marine grunt. 58,000+ were killed in that war and approximately 17,000 were draftees who didn’t want to be there. I served with many of them.

At that time, the “state” could tell a young man that they (the state) were going to control his body not for just 9 months but for 2 years. Unlike a pregnant woman, they forced you to leave your familiy, home, wife, girlfriend, job, school, dog and again forced you to go to a country and a war you did not support where other men would try to KILL or maim you for life. Many returned with physical and emotional scars that can never heal. The U.S. Supreme Court during that time ruled that the DRAFT was Constitutional. What was their reasoning? They said the drafting if a man was the most serious invasion of his right to privacy that could be done but it was NECESSARY as the “state had the right to exist” in time if war. I submit that telling a woman she has to carry that child to term is the most serious invasion of her right to privacy that can be done BUT it is NECESSARY as “that child has the right to exist”!

We are not drafting now but it’s just a matter of time until we get into another big one. By the way, the S.C. has also ruled that women can’t be drafted. Interesting

Now you tell me how the S.C. could draft men to be killed and at the same time say women have a right to privacy. 17,000 drafted men in the V.N. war alone not to mention WWII and Korea.

You can say it’s apples and oranges if you want to but for the apples (the men) it’s much worse because when your dead your dead.

I really would appreciate a “reasoned” answer.