Thinking Right

By Redneck Convert

November 19, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

Well, all I got to say is if us rednecks get them pregnant they need to stay pregnant. I’m sick of these women that won’t have our babys and want to spite us men.

Like a good conservative, I’m all for the guvmint staying out of our life till it comes to abortion. Then I want the guvmint to step in and make sure all babys are borned. Lock up the doctors that give abortion. Or give them the Death Penalty. They are murdering people. And lock up the women that have abortions too. We will go a little easy on them and not give them the Death Penalty. About 20 years will be enough or until they are too old to have babys.

But I don’t want to pay taxes to support the babys that get borned. My job is to make sure they are borned. It ain’t my job to worry about them after that. So let them starve and do without doctors and all that after they are born, if it comes to me paying more taxes. Like my buddy jbmlaw says, the death rate is 100%, so they might as well go earlier than later. Cut out welfare and Peachcare and all the giveaway programs. Make them go to work. I figure a little kid can sweep floors or take care of yard work and stuff like that to make enough money for a living. Anyway, they are the products of Sin, so they deserve to suffer a little bit. Even if they didn’t have nothing to do with being borned. Maybe the churches and such can chip in a little bit, but don’t make me pay taxes for the kids.

There, I sure got a load off of my mind. I guess I can turn to my beer deliverys with a light heart, now that I took care of the abortion problem. The Baptists will be mighty thirsty, what with a holiday weekend and all, and I got to deliver enough beer in three days to last for six days. Have a good day everybody.

By jbmlaw

November 19, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Yes, and yes.

Approximately 20 years ago I changed my mind on abortion. Around the time of Roe v Wade, I was still a wishy-washy moderate, with mild libertarian inclinations. I then-believed the Federally-compelled change in law was a good idea, an expansion of “freedom.” I was intellectually incapable of distinguishing innocent life from evil. The greatest skeleton in my personal closet is that I had some desperately-poor friends who, although already-married, decided they could not afford a child; I funded their abortion. I now believe my good-intentioned act of compassion was one of unmitigated evil, and I came to than sensibility shortly after my own sons were born.

Many of our leftist friends question the existence of “judicial activism,’ equating Roosevelt-and-later expansion of Federal jurisdiction with the pull back to the traditional role of the central government. Those questions reflect nothing so much as foolishness. If one reads Roe v Wade, one will come away with the unmistakable impression that the court was making it up as they went, and, of course, Harry was. http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/ By any measure, the subject should be discussed until we have a national consensus. The greatest evil of the 1973 Supreme Court action is that it aborted discussion before we could reach such a consensus.

Long-time bloggers know I endorsed Fred on this spot last March, and I have seen nothing to change my mind. I believe Fred’s “federalism” approach is the correct way to address a multiplicity of social problems created by the national socialists, abortion included. I also believe Fred is most likely to nominate strict-constructionist judges, which alone will do much to cure the evil wrought by leftists. I enjoyed a law-school professor’s argument that lamented the loss of “federalism, our great national Petri dish of legislative experiments.”

By getalife

November 19, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

Abortion is a hypocrite issue for the pro death right.

It is the economy stupid!

You get what you vote for.

Happy Holidays!

By time for the well balanced and unassailable truth

November 19, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

Abortion and post natal abortions should be made immediately compulsory for leftists and grasping greasy illegal leeches who refuse to slither back to mexico and points south!!

On a much less serious note I changed my views from being generally in favour of abortion on demand to being completely against partial birth abortion and against late term abortions - unless the life of the mother is directly and severely threatened. Abortion should never be used as the ultimate form of contraception as was/is the case in murderous oppressive commie countries like the ussr and red china. I still support early abortions for women who seek one but parental notification is essential for all under age young uns and abortion doctors who break the law and enable statutory rape/incest etc to go unpunished - like that scumbag in Kansas - need to be struck off and jailed. Religious nutters/facists like eric rudolph and the more rabid intolerant so called right to lifers are just as evil as hatchet faced feminazi haggish nags screeching outside abortion clinics.

here’s a web site we can all benefit from bookmarking for regular perusal. some superb articles against the evils and outrages of bacon munching are clustered together for one’s edification.

it seems the bacon munching towel head fascists have now perpetrated over 10,000 terrorist outrages in the name of their backward unhinged racist bollocks and their child molesting (one of his many wives was only 9 years old) illiterate toy boy so called prophet!!

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Over the weekend I rented a new dvd release with Timothy Hutton et al focusing on a despicable racist outrage in Alabama back in the early 1930’s. The film is well worth renting. What became known as the Scottsboro Boys case was quite unbelievable. A lying racist young white southern w hore wilfully utterly destroyed the lives of nine young black men out of pure evil spite by falsely continuously crying rape to cover up her own vile w horlacious ways The systematically racist AL legal system and a lynch mob of 12 racist white male AL pigs masquerading as a jury repeatedly refused to do the right thing and free these innocent men.

This shameful case in AL is worthy of unbridled outrage, even today. The much more recent case of the 6 black racist thuggish scum who beat an innocent white yoof unconscious in Jena in a wholly PREMEDITATED cowardly attack is the kind of racial poison black pimps and w hores have to desperately resort to puke up their black racist hate and bigotry in this day and age.

By GayGreyGeek

November 19, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

FYI, jmblaw, it’s you and your fellow paleocons (there’s very little “neo” about y’all, any more) who have kept abortion on The Front Burner, not those you insult with your Nazi reference, you Jew baiter.

By Sherry Baby

November 19, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

If a man could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. The consensus has been reached about pro-life: Most women are pro-abortion, anti-life, pro-choice, or pro-death, they dont care what you call it, they’re having abortions… They’ve thought about it for 50,000 years, and they’ve decided for choice. Seems they dont like the way they’ve been treated by men after they actually have a child. Seems like women are sick of being clueless and shoeless.

Oh, and to any man’s guilt-inspired objection to pro-choice now? Stuff it!

As folks age, they do change their minds about abortion, but that doesn’t help the unborn or the fertile freakazoids playing in the blingdom.

Remember, even OJ says, “Hey, give me a break, the murders happened 13 years ago, I’m not the same guy…”

By Glenn

November 19, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

Heidi everbody.

Jbm, welcome back. I know it’s a hassle, but please see my posts of Saturday the 17th at 3:15 and this morning at the very end of that string.

getalife,

Yes, so we came to find out under the Clintons. That’s why in 2000 more electors chose sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum.

Without boring you with the rather surprising derivation of your word “hypocrite”, I’ll just point out that there is nothing necessarily hypocritical about Republicans—or for that matter what you Greenies might wish to call non-secularists—supporting the war while opposing the lavish use of the abortion procedure. The late John Paul II, may his memory be blessing to Cajun and Creole alike, was by far (175%, to be precise) the most pacific pontiff in history, and even he, a professional philosopher, saw no contradiction between warfare and opposition to abortion. He wrote as much, in fact.

By TW

November 19, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

Wise words, Mr. Wooten - welcome to middle America. Your support of The Constitution this morning is refreshing. Have a great day.

By Curious Observer

November 19, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

Would someone please alert the authorities that the British undesirable alien TFTT has once again escaped from Northwest Georgia Regional Hospital and is now squandering his half wit on devising batches of 25 modifiers of the word leftist?

By God

November 19, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw, you are an accessory to murder and cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

By Glenn

November 19, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

Don’t listen to Him, jbm. He can’t even make an overlarge rock and He hangs out with hookers and cripples and IRS agents and street urchins and foreigners and thieves and murderers and people with disgusting infectious diseases. Sure you’ll get into the Kingdom. You just have to get Him to tell you where and what it is.

[Rudy&Out]

By time for the well balanced and unassailable truth about LEFTIST vermin

November 19, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

FAO peeping tom the sick coprophagic leftist dogturd!!

I’m English yer sad coooont!!!

British implies I might be a noxious haggis abusing alcoholic porridge gobbler or even a whiny bleating sheep molestor from the valleys boyo!!

ITALIA!! ITALIA!! ITALIA!! (gedditt??)

By Dennis

November 19, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten’s stand on abortion is not unexpected; life is precious and should not be so easily extinguished by persons who are doing so only for self-centered reasons.

The lives of our military personnel are also precious and should not be so easily extinguished by persons who are doing so only for self-centered reasons.

Regarding jbmlaw@10:24 “I now believe my good-intentioned act of compassion was one of unmitigated evil,”

I’m not a big fan of abortions either, just for self-centered reasons. But (without elaboration) sometimes abortion is the better choice.

No need to feel guilty or be hard on yourself - your’s was an act of “good-intention and compasion.”

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By deegee

November 19, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

All of this nostalgia over federalism is great but we now have an interstate highway system. I doubt that Thomas Jefferson took that into consideration back in the 1700’s. Under Deadhead Fred’s plan, all you have to do is get in the car and drive to the closest state that allows you to have an abortion.

By Sherry Baby

November 19, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

It’s possible Jbmlaw is posturing about abortion, and he made up the story about how he was involved in a conspiracy to abort. No blogger, in the wake of the moral storm he had weathered over the years, would have woven so many tedious philosophical threads. His heart would be sadder, his breath wiser, and his tongue more terse. If jbmlaw’s confession is real, then he feels nothing and can only be trusted to forgive himself.

By Lulubelle

November 19, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

What is right is clear to me… abortion is wrong. I’m glad that you people who favor aborntions were not my parents. This is a moral issue, not a governmental one. No country should pay for abortions …this will curse their land. Let me say this…when you stand before God and give an account of your life, rememeber what Huckabee said about abortion.

By Sammy

November 19, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

I still don’t understand why abortion is a political issue. It’s my body, and it’s my decision. No man has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with MY body.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, we will go back to the dark ages, where abortions were performed in non-sterile places, and women suffered greatly and/or died.

It’s my decision, and should NOT be a political issue.

By Glenn

November 19, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

tftt,

Your (actual) stance on the abortion procedure is mine also. noxious haggis abusing alcoholic porridge gobbler, and this uz nought the tame furr gowblerrs, sew wot wuld aye nyuh?

I actually did bookmark your link. Both the site and your link to it are a spiffing good use of the Net.

If you liked the Scottsboro Boys, just wait till you see what you’ll find if you look up, wiki-wiki, “Tulsa Race Riot”. As usual, the original’s better than the sequel!

[Rudy&Out]

By Lulubelle

November 19, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

and to Dennis……”I’m not a big fan of abortions either, just for self-centered reasons. But (without elaboration) sometimes abortion is the better choice.” …you’ve never counseled the many women who are still tormented over having an abortion, have you?

By BS Aplenty

November 19, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

It’s easy to clean up ones own mistakes on the backs of those who cannot speak for themselves.

I am decidedly “pro-choice” but not “pro-abortion.” There are simply too many “prophylactic means” available, including education, to shift the basic responsiblity for sexual activity & reproduction.

No question that the burden for this decision falls disproportionately on women, but that burden cannot be an excuse for murder. Men, or their guardians, should be made to shoulder their responsiblity. The difficulties in remedying this problem simply do not justify the convenience of abortion.

Sherry Baby you were likely more outraged at Mike Vick’s treatment of his dogs than you are at the treatment of your fellow human beings.

By Mike In Woodstock

November 19, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Hey, Did anyone see the cargo truck driving around the Ga. Dome yesterday with the mutilated fetuses on it? Totally sick B@stard. The American Taliban is alive and well.

By Rosie

November 19, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

There was a young, unmarried girl who got pregnant. She was still in high school and from a single-parents home; the father of the baby left town. Her mother sat her down and insisted that she abort the baby. There was a doc in town who would do it. This young girl was smart, she had options in the future if she pursued an education and aborted the baby. But she wouldn’t do it. She, under much pressure from family, had the baby. Crazy? The baby is me, now getting older with a great husband and four grown kids of my own. I bless God all the time that my mother had me. She had everything going against her, but she had me and the world is a better place because of it….but nobody could have predicted that. Life is precious.

By ron

November 19, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

Jim,How astute.No and no.

By Lulubelle

November 19, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

Preach it, Rosie…life is precious! There needs to be more of these kinds of stories told.

By JustMe

November 19, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

I was pro-life and changed my mind.

What changed my mind was the way too many pro-lifers attack people. They are supposed to be pro-life and yet want to kill doctors? What is pro-life about that?

For me, the hypocritical way pro-lifers handle their cause is why I no longer support pro-life.

By Annie

November 19, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

I’ve never been faced with the dilemma of an unwanted/unexpected pregnancy and I hope to God it’s something I never have to deal with. But should it come to that, it’ll be an issue that I discuss with my boyfriend and nobody else.

Nobody else will have a say in how we raise a child, why should anybody have a say as to whether or not we actually have a child?

It’s not a political issue, it’s a moral issue. It’s freedom of choice and knowing the pros & cons to your decision. Your decision - not the bible thumpers who would have your burn in hell for even considering abortion. Your decision to make and your decision to live with.

By JustMe

November 19, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

I was pro-life and changed my mind.

What changed my mind was the way too many pro-lifers attack people. They are supposed to be pro-life and yet want to kill doctors? What is pro-life about that?

For me, the hypocritical way pro-lifers handle their cause is why I no longer support pro-life.

By ron

November 19, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

This is a fictional story.Mrs.Schickelgruber had a chance to have an abortion.The end.

By JustMe

November 19, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

I was pro-life and changed my mind.

What changed my mind was the way too many pro-lifers attack people. They are supposed to be pro-life and yet want to kill doctors? What is pro-life about that?

For me, the hypocritical way pro-lifers handle their cause is why I no longer support pro-life.

By Van

November 19, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

Fred’s position on this is one of the clearest think one I have seen. The federal government should not be involved in the abortion issue.

I do have a question for the lefties out there.

As a valid medical procedure, I find abortion does have some value.

What other medical procedure does the federal government find set in law?

All things considered, I think as a form of birth control, it is evil. As a medical procedure, with real doctors and not abortion mill quacks, it is another tool for them to use.

Regarding the other idiots rant about pro-life and pro death penalty. Totally stupid comparison. Doesn’t even reach the apple and oranges level.

By Lisa Love

November 19, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

I am so sick of this issue. The right wing neo-cons care nothing about the babies once they are born. They don’t want to help poor single women who are abondoned by the fathers and they only want certain people to be able to adopt (no gays). They also want to limit women’s access to birth control. They are so hypocritical on this issue they don’t have a leg to stand on. I agree that abortion is sad and that it should be rare, but I absolutely think it should be safe and legal. The right wing only seems to have humanity when it comes to a collection of cells. When it comes to full-fledged human beings they are a party of “I got mine, now you get yours”. They have no true compassion and it is blatently obvious. They are already going to lose even more seats in the House and Senate and will most likely lose the presidency as well. They are out of step with most of the nation. Most people are in favor of keeping abortion safe and legal. Just look at the numbers. Outside the crazy south, that is. Also I will remind you that when you beloved President Bush was in college his family helped obtain an abortion (then illegal) for his girlfriend whom he knocked up. So he is only pro-life when it comes to others, but when he was young and faced with having to father an unwanted baby he chose abortion!!!

By Becky

November 19, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

I have not changed my mind. I still believe that every baby born must be a baby that is wanted. I believe that women must have the right to make the ultimate decisions affecting their reproductive systems. If we give that right up to legislatures(men) and courts(men) then we are second class citizens.

By jbmlaw

November 19, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

Dear Glenn @ 11:14, have not yet had time to research, but this should be a slow afternoon.

Dear GGG @ 11:05, you are correct, that my conservatives continue to reject the nazi-like cult of death that is modern leftism.

Dear getalife, I’ll add to Glenn’s 11:14, noting that Kant saw no contradiction between opposing murder and executing criminals.

Dear god @ 11:24, you are wise enough to know that there are many sound reasons to omit me from the select. I serve nevertheless.

Dear Dennis @ 11:39, thanks, but this is one area where my idealism confronts truth in a cold, hard way.

Dear deegee @ 11:41, you are correct, and that is the beauty of Federalism – nobody is a slave to beliefs alien to his own.

Dear Sherry @ 11:43, I am not above posturing. However, every word I post in my “story” is true. I understand that it is ideologically unacceptable for leftists to believe anyone could leave the way of the “truth” for the dark side. I have no difficulty admitting I was wrong, that I materially-facilitated evil by dear friends. It is simply a fact that I am tediously philosophical; you would call me a “cold fish.”

Dear Sammy @ 11:58, deegee has it right @ 11:41.

By Glenn

November 19, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

Hi deegee at 11:41,

You could have said as easily that all you would have to do were abortion outlawed in the lower 48 is drive across the border for an abortion. Or that all you would have to do under Fred’s regime is locate in a state that doesn’t permit abortion.

And as to contemplating interstate highways, Jefferson did so. He was a full-time futurist. It was his bag. And the principle reason for his purchase of the Louisiana territory was not defense, but transportation: he wanted an unfettered interstate waterway, the Mississippi. He was a federalist in the sense in which jbm is using the word, though he was an antagonist of the Federalist Party. For him (and for Fred) the answers lay in the spokes; for them, in the hub.

By Aquagirl

November 19, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

What other medical procedure does the federal government find set in law?

None, Van, because you don’t see angioplasties on the ballot. Here’s a question for you righties…What other medical procedures are considered group decisions by lawmakers, bible-thumpers, and jbmlaw-types who have all day to blog?

Oh, sure, there’s the occasional Terry Schiavo to be misdiagnosed by Republican bedwetters. (A case where they thought it was a great idea to interfere with the sanctity of marriage to grab a few votes.) But aside from that, nobody sues to stop guys from grabbing those bottles of viagra. Even when taxpayers foot the bill.

By Curious Observer

November 19, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

Yes, we all know “Fred’s” position on abortion. Leave it to the individual states. What he doesn’t address is the tendency of conservative state legislatures to want extraterritorial state laws against abortion—rendering abortion illegal not only within a state but also outside the state in the case of residents who travel elsewhere to have abortions.

How passing strange it is that conservatives plead to keep government off their backs but then want to use government to enforce their moral convictions on everybody else!

By Van

November 19, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

Lisa Love,

I can see you are a hysterical leftie.

Women have the ultimate birth control weapon, As Barbara Bush would have said, “Just say no”. The free love of the 60’s and 70’s did not work then and isn’t working now.

On the conservative side, we are very pro-adoption. Why else would so many foreign adoptions taking place?

By @@

November 19, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

I’m ready to get the abortion discussion out of the public arena so I agree with you Jim. It’s not that I favor abortion, I don’t when there are so many more humane and ethical options available — adoption, surrogacy.

I’ve become more concerned with the kids who are listening to this national debate and questioning the value of children or life in general.

Turn it over to the states. If someone wants to live in a state of promiscuity while conveniently disposing of the consequences then let ‘em live there. I wonder what the population in such a state would be….hmmmmmm, anyhoo

There’s a good reason why there were 12 apostles; why there are twelve jurors. Decisions are best made on a smaller scale. When the special interest groups began sticking their “noises” into the “common good” discussions of this country all things became divisive.

Make note though…with a national population of 301,139,947 the increase in the number of abortions will leave noone to invest in social security. So put that on the states as well.

‘Ya can’t have it ALL!!!! At least that’s what the environmentalist nutjobs are saying these days. According to many of them, finite resources are limited and it’s time to go the way of China when it comes to births.

Imagine that. You accidentally get pregnant, have the child and the government tells you — Oops! No room on the bus for that little one. Off with it’s head.

Disgusting!

I do not want my tax dollars going to fund abortions. RU-486 is the way to go. Screw yourselves, but don’t screw with my morals.

Found this on a Pro-Choice site:

“Our health depends on our ability to share love and pleasure. As women, our bodies have the capacity to create new life. This responsibility and privilege unites us with all our surroundings in an intimate relationship with the tides and the moon, with the family and community, with society and culture, and with the spiritual. The ability to choose how many children we wish to have, and what time in our lives we wish to dedicate to their care, assures us a healthy future for all. Precisely because we value so highly the sacred seed of life, we take so seriously the conditions for life’s unfolding. We want to share with all women how to care for our bodies in a way that’s clear and informed, taking into account all the respect our most vital decisions merit.”

Howzabout taking responsibility for those vital decisions ladies. KEEP YOUR KNEES TOGETHER, the environmentalists have issued the call to arms and they don’t want no babies in ‘em.

By jbmlaw

November 19, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

Dear Rosie @ 12:09, your story, amazing as it is, is not unique. Congratulations on having a great Mom.

Dear Glenn @ 11:14, looks like that was a really twisted chain, but I infer your question is whether I will sign on to a “recall the governor” petition. No, not yet. As bizarre as it sounds, I think Sonny, alone, cooled the most serious fire that faced the state when he was elected, the bizarre “flaggots” issue – an issue of morality that pitted Georgian against Georgian. I suppose I am grateful that the most serious issues facing the state are (1) drought – prayers notwithstanding, a problem slightly beyond the capacity of a governor’s magic, and (2) traffic – seemingly unique to Atlanta, not suffered by NY, Chi, LA, DC, Houston, Miami, etc?

By Jeffisgoofingoff

November 19, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

In these current political conditions, when evangelical christians start throwing their vote behind a pro life candidate, you end up getting the kind of leadership that we did in the white house between ‘92 and ‘00.

I’d rather vote for any moderate republican than to get the worst anti life candidate voted into power.

By dorae

November 19, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

I’m “pro-choice” - I think that when you have unprotected sex you just choose to bear the consequences if you became pregnant. If you conceive a child then you should carry the child to term. If you do not wish to raise the child give him / her up for adoption at birth.
Your choice happened at the time you had sex. With all the sex education out there you would think that our children would know that having sex can and will produce babies.

In answer to your question. No, I have not changed my mind about abortion. All life is precious.

By Shar

November 19, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

If children are wanted, mothers are more likely to seek pre-natal care, be financially able to support the children and be willing and able to make the enormous personal changes and sacrifices that are required to successfully nurture a child. To say nothing of the father, who is far more likely to be an active and involved parent if the child is wanted.

There are valid reasons for not wanting a child. Outside of medical ones (life/health of the mother and viability of the baby), the most common reasons that a child is unwanted are financial, an inability of the mother (usually) to raise the child and/or the existence of too many siblings in the home.

If abortion is couched as a political issue, we need to decide whether the public weal is better served by the drastic step of forcing unwilling and unprepared women to bear children or the drastic step of killing the child before it is born. If the former, it is necessary to assume the care of mother and baby will fall upon the public, as by definition the parent is unable to provide these alone. The discussions on this board and elsewhere on public medical coverage, schools etc. indicate that the public is reluctant to provide adequate levels of such support.

If abortion is a public health issue, the decision is between women who make their own choices about their bodies and those who either abuse themselves to prompt a “spontaneous” abortion, endanger themselves in back alley procedures or who go through pregnancy unwillingly, reluctant to invest in either the baby’s health or their own, with an additional consideration of underweight, malnourished and/or addicted babies being born of such mothers. Georgia leads national statistics in those categories, as well as in maternal deaths due to complications from pregnancy.

If abortion is a moral issue, the question becomes whose morality? One person’s God is not another’s, and there is no “right” answer on a Higher Power. There is, however, a very bright line in our country that prohibits preferring one God over another for the purposes of public policy. Morality, for the purpose of setting law, cannot be based upon the supposed dictates of any deity.

Pregnancy is a confluence of the interests of society in extending itself through healthy children, the interests of the mother and the interests of the child. [I’d like to include fathers in that set, but the disregarding of fatherhood by far too many procreative men as degraded the role of fathers in many of the most intimate childrearing decisions, at least on a public level.] In the perfect world, societal, maternal and infant interests are aligned. This world isn’t perfect, and the mother is the only one of the three capable of understanding a given situation and who will be responsible for living with the consequences. Abortion is a choice, among many, that she should have. It is not in our political or public health interest to take that option away, and the morality of others is not relevant.

JBMlaw @ 10:24, if your generosity of 20 years ago troubles you, I’d suggest two things. One, ask your erstwhile friends if they regret a decision you simplified - but did not make yourself. Two, donate a similar sum (either in dollars, time or as a percentage of your relative worth then and now) to an association that simplifies - but does not make - the decision of indigent pregnant women to bear their children? You can choose to make possible an outcome you believe in just as you did an outcome you now regret.

By InTownGal

November 19, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

I say if you are against abortion, then don’t have one. If states get to decide, there will be a problem with access. For instance, a young woman gets pregnant in S. Georgia and VA is the closet state she can go. Does this sound reasonable to anyone? I will move out of the country before someone gets to tell me if/when I should have a child.

By Glenn

November 19, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

Curious the Cat,

Do you think that abundant abortion is the natural and de facto state of things, cross-culturally and throughout time? Or has it rather become the de jure condition in—oh I dunno—the U.S. since, say, 1973, when something might’ve happened to cause a burgeoning in the use of the procedure?

If the latter, then whose moral convictions are being enforced by government?

It’s a bit like the case of the blogger the other day who couldn’t understand, when it was pointed out, that the worldview of the public schools is one of many alternative ones: secular materialism, artificially made exclusive dogma by force of law. That blogger just assumed that in education it is the natural condition. Just as you assume that bull market abortion is the natural condition. And just as most antebellum Southerners took chattel slavery to be the natural condition.

By jbmlaw

November 19, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this

Perhaps another demonstration of the potential virtues of true Federalism: Nancy Pelosi, in a bizarre new effort, attempts to outlaw “English as a common language.” (In all fairness, Steny Hoyer opposes the effort, which has split the democrats approximately equally, national-socialists vs democrats with a brain.) http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010881 I advocate for our undocumented friends, but I also believe in the necessity of a common language. Both houses of Congress reasonably passed legislation – interestingly, one sponsored primarily by pro-undocumenteds Republicans - that would permit an employer to require all employees to speak English (although it would not compel any employer to so-require English-only.) The anti-assimilation democrats endeavor to expand the scope of the EEOC, whose leadership also favors outlawing the English-only employer right. I guess the democrats cannot tolerate allowing employers to disagree with the national socialist vision. Why cannot this issue be left to the states?

By mg

November 19, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this

How about we stop funding abstinence only programs that are proven to be completely ineffective and teach our youth about safe sex and respect for their bodies?

There’s a deeper root to this issue than people are recognizing and it starts way before anyone is pregnant.

Also… I can’t think of any woman who would go through the mental and physical agony of “using abortion as a means of birth control.”

Come on.

By Mark

November 19, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this

I support abortion only if the mother is black with a low IQ, or is on welfare.

By John Williams

November 19, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this

Strangely enough, most of the pro-abortion people I am aquainted with, are tree hugging vegans that would sooner hug a tree than a human being. How do you reconcile that we have $1200.00 fines for killing a dog, but liberals want the government to fund baby killing. “Strange term used to describe our soldiers that are defending our country - BTW.”

There is no common sense anymore, pick your craziness and hang on.

To the cowardly punk that wrote Redneck Convert - You are so secure in your beliefs and intellect that you must generalize and prosteletyze from the safety of anonimity. Why not come out and play with your real name? You are an ignorant piece o s that must have never been loved or loved anything in return. Grow the F up.

By grateful parent

November 19, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this

i am so grateful and thankful every second of every day that my daughter’s birthmother was pro-life. she couldn’t clean herself up, but she gave my daughter the best life she could by placing her for adoption.

that being said, it is a personal choice and each case has different circumstances. there is no blanket answer that cover every situation. there are just too many gray areas.

By Jen

November 19, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

I have changed my mind and there should only be discussion of it in a presidential campaigne if one of the candidates is threatening the current laws.

I was pro-life for 26 years of my life. Then I had my son. I was married, happily, and finishing graduate school. We were poor, very, but had promising futures. My son is now in 1st grade and I am still happily married and we are now very comfortable, financially.

However, my journery called motherhood has made me realize that (1) every child born deserves to grow up in a loving and nurturing home. It can be poor but there must be warmth and love. (2) I have not walked in the shoes of other women. I have not been raped. I am not a drug addict. I am not very very young. I am not desperate and destitute. I am not a prostitute with all the sad grief they hold. Therefore, I cannot possibly make this sort of decision for someone else.

And please don’t tell me “she didn’t have to have sex.” The purpose of sex is not solely pro-creation. It’s also for comfort, for money, for fun, for love. We should be focusing our efforts on helping young men and women make smart choices in their sexual activity.

If God does exist and he gave us free will so that we are entirely accountable for our own actions then there is no reason for abortion to be anyone’s business but the person doing it.

Rosie, sounds like you and my husband have the same background. Unwed teenaged mother, no father, etc. Pressured by Catholic family to have the baby and voila, my husband was born. However, if you ask my husband he will say that the best thing his mom could have done was to have an abortion. He thinks her life would have been much better than it turned out. Of course, there’s no going back now so you make the best of things. But, he feels that if he’d not been born then he wouldn’t have missed anything (because you can’t miss the future) and she would have had a better life. Just a different perspective.

By JK

November 19, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

My decisions about my uterus are still none of your gosh darn business. Why would I change my mind about that? Maybe we need laws to protect us from senile, cranky old men and frigid, sanctimonious women who think they have the right to pass laws regulating the private medical decisions of people they’ve never even met. Buncha PERVS!

By lovelyliz

November 19, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

I have never, ever liked abortion, but this I know without any doubt:

If you ban abortion, those with $$$$ will have access to safe, private abortions. If one of the Bush twins, or someone of their socio-economic standing wanted to end a pregnancy, they would be on a first class vacation to Europe with a side trip to a very discrete, private clinic for some work fast than you can claim to be pro-life.

I knew these girls, went to school with these girls. Of course some of them have sex and as a consequence get pregnant. They also took unusual vacations at unusual times.

According to a study (1995-2003) from the World Heath Organization, banning abortion does not mean that fewer abortions occur, it just means that they will be less safe.

To decrease the number of abortions, increasing access to reliable birth control would be a better way to go.

By jbmlaw

November 19, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

Dear Shar @ 12:54, thanks for your kind thoughts, but I do not think there is a “yang” that can offset the “ying.” My friends divorced around 20 years ago, approximately 10 years after my “help.” The guy was a best friend of 25+ years, have not seen him since the mid-1980s. I saw the girl once around 10 years ago, and her subsequent life was a bittersweet story. My nature is to bury the past, as there is nothing I can do to fix it.

By Joan

November 19, 2007 1:21 PM | Link to this

Has anyone other than me noticed that men are the ones getting the most upset about abortion? I guess it’s because it’s one thing they can’t control, and are trying like crazy to control us, and they are loosing the fight.

I don’t see too many women posting here today…….

I will say this - It’s MY body, I’ll do what I want with it. No man in this world has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with MY body.

By ron

November 19, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

Ok.,J.K. Go to the head of the class.You have it figured out.

By Glenn

November 19, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

jbm,

On your advice, then, I’ll leave off the recall, with three caveats:

• The tragic flag feud was settled years ago;

• Since the drought began the Governor has done nothing to revise the state Water Plan, which does not contemplate drought relief;

• Even I, who by a longshot am not a water wonk, could prepare for you in one hour, as you were the Governor, a creditable five-point drought mitigation plan that you could announce first thing in the morning.

Thank you for taking the trouble to look at it and offer your sound advice. Like millions of us, I’ve always believed that if you believe strongly in something, you should do something about it.

As to your decision of 20 years ago, I regret that you were accused of insincerity. I think that you were put in a once- or twice-in-a-lifetime sort of moral bind, one which, were it to occur to you now, would be even more intense of a predicament for you.

It’s like the poet sed, there really are many desperate arms about us [all of us] and the things we know.

By John Williams

November 19, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

To - By JK

There are 2 peoples rights involved not just your sorry boil infested uterus. That is the problem, you want to hide behind medical procedure, and life doesn’t begin at conception, when you know d__n well that babies are currently being saved that are born prematurely at less than one pound birthweight. November 19, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

My decisions about my uterus are still none of your gosh darn business. Why would I change my mind about that? Maybe we need laws to protect us from senile, cranky old men and frigid, sanctimonious women who think they have the right to pass laws regulating the private medical decisions of people they’ve never even met. Buncha PERVS!

By lovelyliz

November 19, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this

How many pro-lifers aren’t simply anti-choice for other people?

How many pro-lifers also oppose the death penalty, war and support programs that provide necessities such as food, health care, child care and shelter for such children and paid maternity/paternity leave for working parents?

One can’t be pro-life when they practice: life begins at conception and ends at birth

By Glenn

November 19, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this

dorae, you are a gift.

By Aquagirl

November 19, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

So we have John William’s fine 1:25 “boil infested uterus” and @@’s touching 12:40 “keep your legs together, slut”.

Which post do y’all think best illustrates misogynistic roots of anti-abortionism?

By Glenn

November 19, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this

lovelyliz,

That is one weird and twisted bogeyman you thnk you’ve got beneath your bed. I’m guessing maybe at Samhain you watched too many revival house screenings of scary monster flicks like “The Creature from the Pro-Life Wing”, “It Came from Its Mummy’s Womb”, “The Return of the Daughter of Pro-Lifer”, “The Pro-Life Form that Stole Sex” and the English classic, “The Haunting of the Bedchamber.”

By ron

November 19, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

Tough question,Aqua Girl,But ask me another,I do want to win.

By Glenn

November 19, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

JK,

That’s right, you go, girl! Guard that uterus! Fend off those perverted armchair obstetricians! Chalk it up to misogyny, ‘cause that’s what it’s all about, girlfriend. Uh-huh. DasRight. Ain’t nothin’ more important than you. And your uterus. And the fun uses you choose to put it to or not to put it too. It’s about you. Don’t let ‘em tell you different.

By Katie

November 19, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

Here’s a thought.

if you are against abortions, don’t have one

plain and simple.

By Sherry Baby

November 19, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

That’s not what I would call you, Iago.

By Karen

November 19, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

I am totally pro-choice. As a very young woman, I was pregnant, (empty promises from a guy I thought loved me) and did NOT want a child, ever. I planned to have an abortion. Before the appointment, I changed my mind, and my beautiful daughter is now 20, and I have no regrets. It was my choice to continue the pregnancy, and raise my child, by myself, and she is the greatest thing that ever happened to me, and an absolute blessing every day of her sweet, sweet life. It was my choice to have her. I support the right of other women to make the choice for themselves. No one but the pregnant female has a right to make that choice. I think abortion is a sad, heartbreaking alternative, but for some women, in some situations, it is absolutely the only choice.

By Truthifer

November 19, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

Yes and no. Yes, I have changed my mind on abortion, and no it should not be discussed in the presidential campaign since it is a matter of settled law. My guess is that when someone asks “Have you changed your mind on abortion?” they generally are trying to find out if you’ve gone from supporting abortion rights to opposing them. However, for me it was the other way around. I once was strongly opposed to abortion, and am still not sure that it’s such a good thing in the moral sense, but am now fully in support of a woman’s right to choose. What really caused me to reevaluate my political view on abortion was when the anti-abortion community balked at an opportunity to ban late term abortion because the compromise legislation in Congress made an allowance for situations where the life or health of the mother was at stake. We can all interpret things however we like, but for me it seemed that these folks were saying, since they view the fetus as a human being, that a few more human beings were expendable until they could achieve the ultimate political victory with a complete ban on abortion. Some have made the case that the “professionals” on either side of this argument don’t want the debate to end because it would mean the end of their livelihood. After the failure of the anti abortion community to “save the lives” of some unborn babies by accepting what in their view was a flawed piece of legislation, it seemd pretty clear to me that morality had nothing to do with this debate but money and power had everything to do with it. I might add that, as a former employee of an elected official, the anti-choice callers were by far the most hateful and intolerant we ever faced. Having said that, I know that many people who are opposed to abortion have reached their viewpoint in a very thoughtful and caring way and do genuinely feel that they are supporting a good and noble cause. Unfortunately, as with most any issue or cause, the radical fringe and professional activists are so loud and obnoxious that they obscure the basic message.

By jbmlaw

November 19, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

Dear Glenn @ 1:25, “I think that you were put in a once- or twice-in-a-lifetime sort of moral bind, one which, were it to occur to you now, would be even more intense of a predicament for you.” Perversely, I think such a dilemma could be less troubling for me now – financially I would be capable of adopting my friends’ problem (of course, Mrs. jbmlaw may have something to say about that.) The obvious and most-likely hypothetical would be if one of my sons brought home such a problem – it would be ours.

By ron

November 19, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

And guys,if you are against abortion,don’t cause one.

By church of christ chick

November 19, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

Some of these arguments sound like the preacher’s wife who “shot-gunned” her huband and then claimed she it was ‘cause she was being abused. She’d never filed a complaint against him while he was alive.

It’s easy to

By Lulubelle

November 19, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

what about adoption, you selfish people!

By lovelyliz

November 19, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

one weird and twisted bogeyman

No, just a dislike for hypocrites

By Lisa Love

November 19, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

Yes, the people who get most upset about abortion is men. They can’t stand it if they can’t control everything. Well guess what! You can’t control this one! Even if you make abortions illegal women will still get them. If you are so concerned about it stop telling us women to “close our legs” and instead keep your pecker in your pants. Why are women expected to be the only ones with self control and why are we expected to be the only ones to manage birth control? Just more sexist drivle from brainless male pigs.

By GetOverIt

November 19, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

What other medical procedure does the federal government find set in law?

What about euthanasia?

By RJ

November 19, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

Abortion is most often used by women that are careless and get pregnant as a result. So, they then decide that this isn’t the “right” time or the “right” person, so they abort! If you choose to have unprotected sex and the result is pregnancy, can you at least give the baby up for adoption?! Come on, stop being so selfish!

By RJ

November 19, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

Abortion is most often used by women that are careless and get pregnant as a result. So, they then decide that this isn’t the “right” time or the “right” person, so they abort! If you choose to have unprotected sex and the result is pregnancy, can you at least give the baby up for adoption?! Come on, stop being so selfish!

By RJ

November 19, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

Abortion is most often used by women that are careless and get pregnant as a result. So, they then decide that this isn’t the “right” time or the “right” person, so they abort! If you choose to have unprotected sex and the result is pregnancy, can you at least give the baby up for adoption?! Come on, stop being so selfish!

By RJ

November 19, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

Abortion is most often used by women that are careless and get pregnant as a result. So, they then decide that this isn’t the “right” time or the “right” person, so they abort! If you choose to have unprotected sex and the result is pregnancy, can you at least give the baby up for adoption?! Come on, stop being so selfish!

By jbmlaw

November 19, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

Dear Lisa Love the Jew Baiter @ 12:27, you may have posted the most idiotic argument ever on this blog, quite an accomplishment: “The right wing neo-cons care nothing about the babies once they are born.” What do pro-democracy internationalist Jews have to do with abortion?

By Amy in the ATL

November 19, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this

Anyone who wants to outlaw abortion should have their taxes increased 10% in order to pay for the care of unwanted, and in many cases, unadoptable children. As a mother of two, I understand wanting to protect the sanctity of life. But life is just way too grey to make black and white laws. Is it really better to force the crack-head teenage mom to give birth to a baby who will be developmentally crippled for life? Is it right to force an unwed 15 year old who may or may not have consented to sex to carry a child full term? And what about a parent who finds out that their unborn child will be born with an excruciatingly painful birth defect?? You have to balance quantity of life with quality of life, and those who can’t see that typically don’t understand that morality does not equal ethics. In my mind, it’s better to leave abortion safe and legal while working on preventing people from getting into these situations in the first place.

By jbmlaw

November 19, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this

Dear Truthifier @ 2:08, I suppose you have a different definition of “settled law” than I. If it were truly “settled,” we would not be having this discussion. Otherwise, my compliments on a thoughtful post.

By Lisa Love

November 19, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

RJ, how in the world do you know why abortion is most often used? You have no idea and are just making things up. There is some idiotic right-wing fantasy out there that if abortion was illegal then there would be all these beautiful white babies available for barren Republicans to adopt. Well, wake up folks! Most people in this country who give up their children for adoption do it because their lives are totally messed up by drugs and alcohol. The babies they unleash on society are crack-addled, cocaine and meth addicted and/or have fetal alcohol syndrome. Many of these women would have had abortions if they had known earlier that they were pregnant of could have spared $300 of their drug money for an abortion. You all are living in a fantasy world with this adoption issue. Also, if you believe so strongly in adoption versus abortion then I hope to god that you have actually put your money where your mouth is adopted a child! If not, then you are a hypocrite. So go out and adopt a baby, preferably a baby of color who was born drug addicted because that baby sure needs a good home. Go now! Do it! Stop trumpeting adoption until you are willing to do it yourself!

By lou

November 19, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

I think abortion is morally wrong. However, it is MY body. What is IN my body is for me to decide what to do with. I want the choice. Women make the choice—they do often suffer with the consequences—that is their right. No one NO ONE is going to tell me what I can do with something that is inside my body—whatever you call it. I like Kucincich’s view: it’s a right to privacy — fix the problem: have more education, more contraceptives available.

No one will EVER tell me what I can or cannot do with my body.

So, I believe it’s wrong and I believe I must have the right to choose.

By GetOverIt

November 19, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

I was 19 years old when I got pregnant. Wasn’t married and was in my first year of college. I had been brought up for half of my childhood in a single-parent home. I had been taught that abortion was not an option. I had my child.

My son is now 9 years old. He is healthy, happy, and well mannered. I am about to receive my PhD and should start out in pay around 100,000/year.

Now, if I hadn’t gotten pregnant at that age or had an abortion, would I have had a better, more successful life? As only 1% of the US population gets a PhD, I doubt it.

If I hadn’t gotten pregnant at that age would my son have had better, more successful life? Maybe, but probably not enough to matter and he probably learned some valuable lessons from experience I couldn’t have taught him later.

If I had opted for an abortion, my son couldn’t have had a better life b/c he wouldn’t have gotten the chance to live.

I am against the death penalty and for social programs to help single parents and all children (regardless of the parents). I believe we should also be working on prevention programs that help children make better lifestyle choices.

Finally, as adoption is always an option, I don’t really see why (except maybe with a pregnancy that will most likely lead to the death of both mother and child) a person would need to have an abortion. I can’t really imagine any good reason to kill a child.

By Solution

November 19, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this

Tell ya what, I’ll keep my knees together, if you keep your pants zipped up!!!!!!

Any why are you blasting women for unprotected sex? Ever heard of a condom?

By .

November 19, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

RJ, dude, did you really say “Abortion is most often used by women that are careless and get pregnant as a result. “

So, women are careless and get pregnant as a result of what, man? Using their tampons wrong? Burning themselve with that darn curling iron? Or maybe it was that belly dancing class.

Dude, women get pregnant from having sex with men. Why are you blaming only one have of the equation? You think all the guys are sitting in the dark, crying, thinking, “I wish she wouldn’t do this. I really want to have that baby even though I’m 18 and I only met her once.”????

Dude, it’s cr@p like that make women turn gay…just kidding, ladies.

GetOverIt Wow, a PhD at 28. Most are > 30 (like myself - age 32 at defense). What in? If you’re about to make 100K a year it must be in the sciences and technology. What support mechanism did you have to get you through school so fast while being a single mother? Who helped while you spent hours until 1am in the lab? Good luck with that btu your story sounds a bit fishy.

By JMBLOW

November 19, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this

I am sorry that so many of you can’t have babies of your own. Nature can be cruel. That doesn’t mean you should expect everyone to go through with an unwanted pregnancy just because you can never get pregnant (this includes you men). Bitterness can drive some people to be really quite meddlesome. It’s my body and I will do what I want with it. If you outlaw abortion I will still get one if I really want one. And if I do decide to keep my baby, you can bet I won’t be giving it to some right-wing religious nut. Thank goodness for open adoption. Now we can screen out the idiots when we give up our babies.

By Peter

November 19, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this

Wow here is a comment that makes allot of sense……

“By Lisa Love

November 19, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

I am so sick of this issue. The right wing neo-cons care nothing about the babies once they are born. They don’t want to help poor single women who are abondoned by the fathers and they only want certain people to be able to adopt (no gays). They also want to limit women’s access to birth control. They are so hypocritical on this issue they don’t have a leg to stand on. I agree that abortion is sad and that it should be rare, but I absolutely think it should be safe and legal. The right wing only seems to have humanity when it comes to a collection of cells. When it comes to full-fledged human beings they are a party of “I got mine, now you get yours”. They have no true compassion and it is blatently obvious. They are already going to lose even more seats in the House and Senate and will most likely lose the presidency as well. They are out of step with most of the nation. Most people are in favor of keeping abortion safe and legal. Just look at the numbers. Outside the crazy south, that is. Also I will remind you that when you beloved President Bush was in college his family helped obtain an abortion (then illegal) for his girlfriend whom he knocked up. So he is only pro-life when it comes to others, but when he was young and faced with having to father an unwanted baby he chose abortion!!!”

There you have it folks…… The President had his girlfriend have an abortion……

Also look at the returning GI’s due to the WAR…… no real help for them either in the long term.

This country will NOT help their own, as the Right wing calls that wasteful spending for those that “Should take care of themselves”…

They balm all the Liberals for having compassion, and for spending the money on the poor and needy in this country……..

The RIGHT WING likes to spend their money on WAR and Killing…….

I guess the right wing has forgotten one BIG FACT……

“Killing is KILLING no matter what the age”

Talk about true baloney……one can’t get an abortion as that is immoral ?

But hey ….George can go INVADE and KILL thousands in another country……. after of course…. “Praying to HIS GOD !”

By Sherry Baby

November 19, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

Petah, the lettah, petah petah petah, the lettah….

Lisa’s comment was last year’s story, man.

Try again, and this time be brief.

By deegee

November 19, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this

Okay, how about this? When we outlaw abortion the law will be changed such that an unwed mother can get as many government subsidized paternity tests as needed to determine the paternity of the child. A court ordered summoms will be served on the alleged father. Once paternity has been proven the father will be forced to marry the mother. The father can marry as many women as he can impregnate and support. How would that be?

By Glenn

November 19, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this

ron @ 2:09,

Good point.

church of christ chick @ 2:10,

Or the young man who having shot his parents threw himself on the mercy of the court on the gounds that he was an orphan.

BTW, your alter egos are getting rusty. What church of christ chick would spell christ without the capitalization?

jbm, that’s beautiful.

Karen @ 2:06, your perfect post leads me to ask whether you, like presidents Clinton and G.W. Bush, feel that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.”

ron @ 12:23, I read your entire story, the prologue, beginning, climax, denouement, ending, epilogue and all. It seems that your climactic line is: “Mrs. Schickelgruber had a chance to have an abortion.” What a powerful and original thought, that one wishes that Hitler had never lived! That in cases of such evil abortion suddenly becomes a boon!

I mean, after all, he did murder an impressive number of Jews, and a lot of gentile Gypsies and Poles too, and homosexuals and intellectuals and inconveniently elderly and disabled people and people who took their Lutheranism or Catholicism too seriously and communists and whatnot. That’s evil. And war is evil. All killing is evil. Abortion, good; killing, bad. Right, ron?

Well, as you may have found, Mrs. S. didn’t kill her son. He killed himself and his bride before the other pro-war, pro-death people could do it for him. But by then he’d already done all that killing, so it would’ve been better had his mother aborted him, yes. Again, killing bad; abortion good. We get it.

Trouble is that when it became clear that the man was a genocidal mass murder, some immoral people got their ethics reversed. They thought: killing OK; abortion bad. So the pro-death, anti-abortion crowd of practicing Catholic military officers, radical Lutheran church officials and young students of Catholicism banded together—that’s right, ron, a death squad!—and repeatedly tried to kill him. Because they failed, the sin of killing was compounded when every last one of them was captured and creatively tortured to death on his orders. And oh, how the pro-death Hitler enjoyed watching the films of those deaths time and again!

By the time that death-lover’s murder plans had been activated, Judaism had held for 4,684 years that G-d commands killing as the only punishment for murder, that the wars of man can achieve His justice, and that He forbids abortion under any circumstances.

By aaa

November 19, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

Abortion is a womens right, it is not a political gain. I am pregnant now, and I have realized that I will never have an abortion again. As I am living up to my responsibilties, For Politicans to use it as a crutch for gain is disgusting. I am Pro-Choice! Thats what I will vote for, anyone who can say that, you got my vote!!

By Peter

November 19, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this

WOW here is a funny comment…….

“By RJ

November 19, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

Abortion is most often used by women that are careless and get pregnant as a result. So, they then decide that this isn’t the “right” time or the “right” person, so they abort! If you choose to have unprotected sex and the result is pregnancy, can you at least give the baby up for adoption?! Come on, stop being so selfish!”

Gee how did those women all get pregnant…… maybe the men forgot something here think ?

Takes two to tango folks, and definitely more than one to make a baby…..

Wow you gotta love all the adoption stuff here as well…….. does any one here know how many kids are sitting waiting to be adopted……

I wonder how many of you RIGHTS have an adopted baby that is blogging today ?

Have any of the white RIGHTS here adopted a baby that isn’t white ?

By BS Aplenty

November 19, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this

deegee I was with you ‘til you required the man to be “…forced to marry the mother.” I would substitute “support” for “marry” - now we’re about on the same page.

By Lisa Love

November 19, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

Deegee, that is a great point. If abortion is made illegal then our government should force men to marry the women they impregnate! Bravo! Seriously, I think you have it. If that had happened all those years ago back in Texas another woman would be first lady now. Just think of it…

By Shark Sammich

November 19, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

Haven’t really changed much in the last twenty years. I think it’s crazy to criminalize abortion. Most Americans agree.

Oh, and Jim? Most Americans don’t want Roe v. Wade overturned, either. You can whine about “judicial activism” until the cows come home; you can continue to use Roe as a wedge issue if you think it’s still a winner, locally; but as a Republican you’d better hope it never stops being established law.

By GetOverIt

November 19, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this

Actually, my PhD is in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. I will be working for corporations therefore, the big payday. I am one of the older students in the program. Most of the individuals that get through the program are about 28 when they finish (usually no children). I still have my dissertation to finish and I am currently 29 year old, not 28. This is my 10th year in college (including undergrad) so I wouldn’t exactly say I am flying through the program.

I guess I just plan better, but I don’t have to work in the lab until 1am. I get my work done during the day. As do the professors (who have children) and other students with children.

I have my mother to help and I also had the option of using daycare (used it for a while). However, I have also had a nephew and two nieces living with me on and off during this time as well. I guess unlike you, some people are just a little bit better at dealing with what life throws at them. In fact, more than one person in the program has said, I don’t know how you do it. But the thing is, my education was never more important than a child. It is an easy choice and sometimes it is difficult to work out. However, when I get my PhD, the victory will that much sweeter.

My question is what PhD did you get that it took you until 32 to defend you dissertation? I assume that is what you mean by “at defense”.

By the way, I give most of the credit for my success to God. He made sure I made it. You are right I did need the help, I couldn’t have made it without Him.

By Nan

November 19, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this

I haven’t changed my mind. My body, my decision.

The only thing that has changed over the time is the anti-abortion nuts who hate women and sex are getting crazier with each passing year. If they were truly concerned about reducing the number of abortions they’d support the use of contraception. Instead, they oppose that, too, so it’s clear they’re not pro-life — they’re anti-woman and anti-sex.

By GaLiberal

November 19, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

Moron Jim says: Thompson, interviewed on “This Week” on ABC, said Roe v. Wade should be overturned with states deciding whether to allow abortions and under what conditions. “We need to remember what the status was before Roe v. Wade.”

My view tracks Thompson’s. Roe v. Wade is an example of court activism.

What Moron Jim doesn’t tell you is that in the good ol’ days before Roe, women sought out back-alley “doctors” for their abortions. They also tried various home methods like injecting mercury and other hazardous chemicals. Both resulted in agonizing pain, permanent damage to the reproductive organs, and even death. So Moron Jim and his theocratic Bible-thumping Rethuglicon brethren want to turn the clock back to the good ol’ days.

Another thing that Moron Jim doesn’t tell you is that most forms of contraception were also outlawed. You couldn’t buy condoms (or today it would be the pill) and vasectomy and tubal ligation were not allowed. “Deviate” sexual practices like oral sex and homosexual acts were also outlawed and punishable by long prison sentences. We don’t like the cops peeking in our bedroom windows, but that’s not good enough for Moron Jim and his theocratic Bible-thumping Rethuglicon brethren. They want to pass a NATIONAL law or even AMEND THE CONSTITUTION that outlaws all abortions (with the possible exception for rape, incest, or life of the mother, but don’t count on it). This is what one would call theocratic activism. They want to return women to the status of breeding cattle. So let’s go back to the good ol’ days. But let’s not stop there. Let’s also roll back all “judical activism” like the end of segrated schools, overturing racial purity laws, and the 2000 decision that put Bush in the White House.

When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And the effort to overturn Roe is living proof.

By Lulubelle

November 19, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

what about adoption, you selfish people!

By Sherry Baby

November 19, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this

If you outlaw abortion, then only fetuses will be outlaws. (We’re sorry, ma’am, but your unborn child is Billy the Kid).

By m

November 19, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this

i’m absolutely pro-choice, although i do not support abortion as a substitute to available contraceptives. sometimes you make a mistake…sometimes the condom breaks, you forget a pill..etc. and if you are not wanting a child and you or your SO gets pregnant, there’s lots of stuff you need to think about. abstain from sex? are you people human?

it’s not fair to ask someone to raise a child when they don’t want to, likewise, its also not fair to ask the government or the country to raise the child you don’t want either.

i guess the pro-lifers are just lined up around the corner at all the orphanages and foster homes begging for all those unwanted kids? i thought not.

and the moral thing to do would be to quit interfering with something that has absolutely nothing to do with you.

By Peter

November 19, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this

Hey Sherry Baby,

I guess you support the WAR and the killing there ?

“killing is killing no matter what the age”

“By Sherry Baby

November 19, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

Petah, the lettah, petah petah petah, the lettah….

Lisa’s comment was last year’s story, man.

Try again, and this time be brief.”

What part don’t you get……what part is old history ?

By Truthifier

November 19, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this

Thanks jbm. I will admit, when I wrote “settled law” I knew I was venturing into territory I wasn’t prepared to defend but it seems to be the most often used term. I guess what I meant was that I prefer the current court ruling so I would prefer that it not be revisited.

By lane filler

November 19, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this

Anyone interested in what Huckabee is really like face to face should try this funny (but it actually happened) column: http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/02/title_14

By church of christ chick

November 19, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this

cs lewis.

By Shark Sammich

November 19, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this

Peter asked:

Have any of the white RIGHTS here adopted a baby that isn’t white ?

Funny how rarely that happens, eh?

(But it does happen, and this might be a good time to say something nice about Sonny Perdue, since he and the Mrs. did act as foster parents to eight kids between 1998 and 2000… pretty sure at least some, if not all, were African-American. Not the same commitment as adoption, but still commendable.)

By deegee

November 19, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

Sorry, BSAplenty. If you knock her up you marry her. If she doesn’t want to come looking for you then she doesn’t get any government assistance.

By Lollipop

November 19, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, folks. It used to be shameful to have a baby out of wedlock. Not any more. What incentive does a woman have to put her baby up for adoption these days? If she does it is most likely because she has got some pretty serious issues so your baby that you adopt is probably not going to be born in perfect health. Most of the time anyway. My sister is a social worker and she says that a huge percentage of babies put up for adoption in this country are drug and alcohol exposed and are facing a lifetime of problems which is one of the factors driving many Americans to adopt abroad. So I am just trying to point out that simply saying “adopt” as an alternative to abortion is pretty Pollyanna and naive. It’s not that simple and Americans are not adopting the babies we have now. What will drive us to adopt if even more babies are on the market? Nothing. Wake up, adoption is not the answer.

By .

November 19, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this

GetOverIt, so you ALREADY have that fancy corporate job? It’s just there, waiting for you to choose it? Corporate jobs at that paygrade aren’t family friendly - I warn you. My wife warns you. They don’t take kindly to skipping out of the office for a few hours to attend your kid’s Thanksgiving feast from 1-3, even if you do return to work and make up the hours. They don’t usually give good vaction, no matter your education. Vacation time is tenure dependent, no matter your paygrade. Also, they usually don’t allow working from home, so you have to take a vacation or sick day when there is a Teacher Planning Day or the kid is sick, or there’s a holiday the school system celebrates that your company doesn’t.

That’s one good thing about the academic jobs. They don’t pay as well but you have more time for your kids. Afterall, I can go into the lab at night, after my son is asleep because I don’t work corporate hours…

Go ahead an pat yourself on the back for being a “better planner” than me. I take it your research doesn’t involve surgery in which there is a specific time course to be followed, thus late nights at the lab.

As for my being 32 when I defended? I waited 2 years for my wife to finish her Masters before I started my PhD.

Good for you for being a single mother and making it, just don’t wear that mantle for all women. Not every difficult situation is like yours.

OBVIOUSLY, you had a support system. You woudn’t have made it otherwise, despite your grit. Remember that many women don’t have that.

By STEVE LLOYD

November 19, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this

A girlfriend of mine had an abortion 21 years ago. At the time it seemed like the right thing to do, we were both just teenagers with no idea of what “responsibility” was. however, as i have aged, and watched my two brothers have and raise children, if I could go back and change one decision I made when I was just a kid, It would be to have that child. This was a decsion made, that really weighs on me so very heavily today. I often wonder what my child would have been like, and what kind of person he/she would be today. I feel like I missed out on so much. I think each individual must make that choice, but if you are facing this decsion, DO NOT MAKE IT LIGHTLY!, for it is something you will have to live with the rest of your life.

By Peter

November 19, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

Hey Shark if that is true, I commend Sonny for those actions…….

BUT I ask you does he still have the kids at home?

Also Shark what are we doing about the water crises? Any thoughts on Sonny’s plan there?

By GetOverIt

November 19, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

Peter

So, we just kill the unborn children because there are too many already. How about we just kill all the kids waiting to be adopted too. There, problem solved. Oh wait, that’s right those are children and unborn children are not children. Sorry forgot about the language that dictates pro-choice literature.

Actually, the majority (like 98%) of individuals that have an abortion have gotten pregnant by having consenting sex. Less than 2% of abortions are performed for victims of rape or incest. Additionally, only around 6-7% are for health reasons (risk to mother and/or child).

So, while RJ’s comment is rather crass, it is at its basic level true. The majority of women that have an abortion do it because they had sex, got pregnant, and didn’t want to have a child. I agree, the men are just as responsible.

In fact, top reasons for having an abortion:

Not ready/want to wait Can’t afford it Don’t get along with the father Interrupt work/school progression

By nurse&mother

November 19, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

To those of you that support abortion when the child is not wanted, what about adoption? There is an alternative to abortion when the baby daddy leaves, or the momma is too poor to raise a child (I didn’t realize that women actually abort for such reasons. Up here in North Georgia those women just let the government keep them up!!).

I was adopted when I was two days old and I completely respect my biological mother for not going to a back alley and having this procedure done. I was born several months after Roe V. Wade.

I do sympathize with those women who conceive after a rape. In those situations those women can take the “morning after pill”. There dilemma solved.

By Nikita

November 19, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

Yes, and no.

Yes, my mind has changed. I was at one point pro-life. But it has since been made clear to me that pro-life is a misnomer and when rights are given to some, they are often taken from others. When masses of cells are given equal legal footing with 42-year-old adults, the adults lose their basic rights to self-determination. I would not have an abortion, but I also would not have distant people making my medical decisions. Nor should they. My parents, incidentally, are extremely conservative and we hold the same opinion of this issue. They hold it because they do not favor state intervention in private matters.

And no, I see no point in discussing it once again. Either you’re for the self-determination of all citizens, or you’re not. There is no need to discuss it, though I would prefer to know which you are so I can vote accordingly.

By Lisa Love

November 19, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this

Steve Lloyd, I feel for you, I do. I know it is painful and I appreciate what you wrote. The problem is in life we can’t have it both ways. We can’t make the right decision for ourselves at the time and expect to never have regret or wonder what could have been. If it was the right decision for you and your girlfriend at the time, then it was the right decision period. You have lived many years since and I am sure have had the opportunity to start and raise a family as a more mature and settled person. If parenthood is such the right thing for you then why haven’t you done it? I don’t mean to sound harsh but I think you are romanticizing something that, in reality, you don’t necessarily really want. If you did, you would have it by now.

By wHAAAT

November 19, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

Back alley doctors, coat hanger abortions. Those are the real fantasies. Until Roe, abortion was extremely unpopular in America. While there were doubtless back alley abortions, it was nothing compared to the holocaust of murdered babies today. We opened the door with Roe and tens of millions of unborn children were killed.
While the pain of women in an unwanted pregnancy is a real consideration, so is the life of this unborn child. Is there a way to talk about the balance of rights and needs without screaming epithets at each other?

By Peter

November 19, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this

Hey GetOverIt………do you support the WAR and the Killing in Iraq?

Do you support a president who stated…… ” I prayed to God ” about the war?

A President who INVADED another country ? A President who SPENDS Billions on the WAR MACHINE ? A President who VETO’s the spending of money on heath, education, and the welfare of the very poor in America ?

I think abortion is a choice thing, this is NOT a Moral decision.

Killing is a way of life in the world and the USA…… Our President is the leader in Killing………he INVADED another country !

Heck we can all go out and buy automatic weapons here, and for what……… do we needs these weapons for killing bambi, or duck hunting?

By nurse&mother

November 19, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this

There is not a shortage of parents willing to adopt infants. There is a shortage of parents willing to adopt older children whose parents are unfit and are abusive, and the children have been taken away. It is very difficult to place children in adoptive homes when they are school age or teens. In these cases, the mothers could have aborted, but didn’t (obviously). If mothers that would have otherwise chosen abortion, instead, decided to give their baby up for adoption, these infants would have people willing to adopt them.

Why do you think that so many infertile couples (or single moms) are having to go to other countries to adopt newborns? American newborns that are up for adoption are uncommon. I personally have known 6 couples that had to go to other countries to a baby.

By Shrill Misogynist

November 19, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh…I want a stolen uterus for Christmas.

A stolen uterus is all I want.

Don’t want a crocodile,

No rhinoceroses.

All I really want

Is others’ uteruses,

And others’ uteruses want me too!

[R&O]

By BS Aplenty

November 19, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

deegee I would agree, in my household, it would be marriage. It’s just that in practice it’s not possible, and not necessarily beneficial, to force marriage on anyone. Support from the father (not the state) would always be required.

By Dr. Marcus Welby

November 19, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

Many of you have been wondering the diagnosis of my patient tftt. As you might have suspected, there is a whole stew of maladies at work here, but perhaps the singular cause of it all is the best explanation. He is, you see, an abortion survivor.

By Alexis

November 19, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

Abortion is evil. It is murder, plain and simple. The Good Lord will not forgive someone who murders their child, be it in-utero or born. I am sickened by these liberals who have twisted our constitution in an effort to make this vile practice legal. These are the same liberal enablers who allow homosexuals to live among us as though they were normal people. Disgusting.

By Anonymous

November 19, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this

To answer Wooten’s question: No, minds will never change on this. We just have to wait for the conservative idiots to die off for society to move forward.

As always.

In the meantime, though, it’s important to identify which candidates support a woman’s right to choose, and which are hopeless reactionary losers who can’t be trusted with a sparkler, let alone elective office.

By Aquagirl

November 19, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

I do sympathize with those women who conceive after a rape. In those situations those women can take the “morning after pill”. There dilemma solved.

How freakin’ simplistic.

Not if you go to a pharmacy with one of these wingnuts behind the counter. Who’s willing to let a “compassionate” anti-abortion prig decide if they want to fill the scrip? Of course these nuts think they know what’s best for everyone else, they have no problem being jerks. You don’t want to explain your rape to a stranger? Tough noogies. You’re not a free-floating collection of cells and are unworthy of sympathy or privacy.

By Aarrgh! Guuurrrgle!

November 19, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this

Dr. Welby you made Pepsi shoot out of my nose with that one! Thanks for the explanation!

By Henne Patchinkowskibob

November 19, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this

In high school a pro-life classmate showed me a picture of a very early term fetus in a textbook and asked me if I didn’t consider that a baby.

“Looks like shrimp to me,” said I.

30 years later. Still does. What a woman does with her own body is not my business.

By Lisa Love

November 19, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this

Alexis, that was hilarious! Tell another one. Let’s have your views on prayer in school. That should also be a hoot. If you are for real, that is, and I doubt you are.

By deegee

November 19, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this

Thanks, BS Aplenty. It sounds like your opinion is pro-life for yourself and pro-choice for everyone else. Just like me.

By Alexis

November 19, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this

Lisa Love, I think prayer should be in school. My children go to a Christian school, and prayer is a large part of their curriculum. I would gladly welcome prayer back into public school, but unfortunately the liberals have managed to derail the public school system and turn it into something that no longer resembles an institution of learning. It is very sad.

By Peter

November 19, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

Wow read this…..

“By Alexis

November 19, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

Abortion is evil. It is murder, plain and simple. The Good Lord will not forgive someone who murders their child, be it in-utero or born. I am sickened by these liberals who have twisted our constitution in an effort to make this vile practice legal. These are the same liberal enablers who allow homosexuals to live among us as though they were normal people. Disgusting.”

War is evil plane and simple….. invading another country for oil, but made to believe it is about security was a BIG LIE”

I am sickened by those RIHGT Wingers that say abortion is immoral, but support a PRESIDENT that twisted our Constitution, and then he kills for OIL !

By Alexis

November 19, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this

Peter, the war in Iraq is not about oil, it is about bringing democracy to that country, removing an evil dictator from power and restoring the hopes of the citizens of that part of the world. It has never been about oil, that is just liberal propaganda.

By GetOverIt

November 19, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this

You honestly think I didn’t have to change my plans. I was planning to be a lawyer but knew this would not be as wise a career move for my child. That is why my work does not require late hours. This is a concession I was willing to make for my child’s happiness. Just as you have opted for working hours that are not “corporate hours” and waiting for your wife to get her Masters. We make sacrifices for our kids (single or not).

I realize not everyone has a mother as good as I have. That is one of the reasons we need to help children and teenagers. Prevention is usually much cheaper and better than dealing with a problem after it occurs.

I was basing my future on the outcome of the graduates from my program. So, I have little doubt the job will be there when I am ready. I have already been alerted to job opportunities from previous graduates and faculty.

As I mentioned before, God got me this far, he will get me the rest of the way. Also, I have been interning for a year and from what I have seen and the information received from others already on the job, time off the job will not be as big a problem as you think. Plus, my kid is homeschooled.

Finally, while my support system has allowed me to make choices having to do with my son, not having them would not have stopped me. I would have made it no matter what. There is no doubt in my mind about this. I think, as I know myself better than you, my opinion on this holds a little more water. In fact, my son was less of an obstacle to getting my PhD than other factors I wish to keep to myself.

I am not saying all single parents can get their PhDs. However, I believe this has more to do with motivation and intelligence, not number of children. I know plenty of people with no children that couldn’t get their PhDs.

All that being said, my education was NEVER more important than my child. He has always been my first priority. I would have given up or at least delayed my education for the sake of my son.

By BS Aplenty (the ENT is in)

November 19, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this

Ear, Nose & Throat-deficient deegee. Sorry to hear about your learning impairment - perhaps it’s a hearing problem. Please make an appointment as the doctor is in.

Habla Espanol.

By Aquagirl

November 19, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this

Oh, Alexis, the fake attention-seeking troll! Wow, was the Mike Vick blog not giving you enough kicks? Poor baby.

Maybe you’ll get your fill here before enough people realize you’re just baiting them. I warn you, though, this isn’t a wide-eyed golly-gee crowd like from other blogs you’ve been on before. They’ll rip you a new one, or worse yet in your little world…ignore you.

By deegee

November 19, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this

Alexis, have you met Dusty?

By Alexis

November 19, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this

Aquagirl, thank you for your concern, I shall give it the requisite amount of attention. As for this blog, it is a forum for voicing one’s opinion, is it not?

By j

November 19, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this

I am pregnant with my third baby, and I’m married. This baby was not planned, and she came at a very inconvenient time. I am occasionally looked down on by others due to the timing. But you know what? I couldn’t care less what mere people think. I will not kill another human being. Who am I to decide on whether someone else lives or dies? I chose my actions and I take responsibility for them. I will never be responsible for murdering an innocent baby out of my own convenience. I don’t care if it stifles my finances or is a lot of work, my baby is a precious life who deserves to live,and her life means more than money for a new car, or vacations. I believe adoption is the way to go if you absolutely can’t handle it. People in denial should research online and see what abortion really does to babies. It rips them limb from limb, sucks their brains out. Babies have been know to try to get away from the suction device, squirm violently, and their heartrates skyrocket when they are about to be killed. This isn’t my opinion, it’s medically documented fact. This is a disgusting, vile, cruel, and inhumane procedure, and it’s insane that people stand up for animals with verve and passion rather than human beings. Sickening. If you can’t handle the consequences there are options. A)don’t have sex.B)use one of the multitudes of birth control. C)give the baby up for adoption D)if you just want pleasure with no consequences, use a dildo for cryin out loud.E)refuse to have sex with a man unless he wears a condom, if you don’t want to take birth control. If he doesn’t like it, tell him he’s not worth your time if he cares so little for you and the consequences YOU will have to endure!

By GetOverIt

November 19, 2007 4:33 PM | Link to this

Peter

No, I do not support the war in Iraq. In the beginning, when the Towers were hit, I, like the majority of the US, felt action needed to be taken. Something needed to be done to deter such insane behavior. When attacked, I believe in fighting back. This is what I think is “right”. Once Bush moved away from this singular goal, I no longer supported the actions.

Also, I think too much money is spent on “war machines”. I support the use of increased funds for health, education, and poor Americans.

Abortion is a “choice” thing like murder is a “choice” thing. Why do you have any more right to be against murder of born people than I have of murder of unborn people? Do we not have laws to prevent the born people from being killed?

You can choose not to see a pregnancy as the beginning of life. However, I do. Maybe you should check out a picture of two of the unborn “thing” that is aborted and tell me it is not human.

By church of christ chick

November 19, 2007 4:34 PM | Link to this

I hearby renounce and forevermore swear off all further attempts at ID-jacking and alias use.

My feable attempts have led me to financial ruin and now I can only afford to eat at Wendy’s.

Quoth the raven, Nevermore.

By HIDT

November 19, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this

OK, c’mon cofc chick. Don’t give up so easily. It’s hard work, but worth it if you can get Dusty’s goat once a month or so.

By naomi s.

November 19, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this

Oh yes it is about oil Alexis!! It’s always been about oil!!! Oil and Bush’s murdering innocent people for oil! Bush’s NEED to murder children for Oil! And his need to send Americans to get killed for—YES—Oil!! You just don’t GET IT! It’s always been all about oil and Bush’s need to murder innocent childen by sending Americans to kill them and get killed for OIL! That’s what it’s all about! That, and so Cheney and his Oil Guzzleyonaires can steal the Oil from the Iraqis so we can get gas prices down so they can keep people buying more Oil instead of SOLAR and keep those dollars rolling in so criminal Republicans can get elected for OIL!! So that’s what it’s always been about—Oil and Bush’s need to murder children by sending Americans to kill them and get killed for Oil so Cheney and his Guzzleyonaires can steal Oil from the Iraqis and dump it on the market to drive down the price of Oil so everyone will stay hooked on KILLER OIL and keep the money coming in to get criminal Republicans elected FOR OIL!!!

That’s all it’s about.

By Aquagirl

November 19, 2007 4:45 PM | Link to this

Alexis @ 4:27, yes, it’s a place to voice your opinion. Go for it. Enjoy. God Bless America. I just wanted to be sure you get your amount of requisite attention as a fake.

P.S. You’re in a sad place when you’re so needy you make TFTT look stable.

By Alexis

November 19, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

naomi s, might I say, you certainly do like to rant about things on which you are clueless. This war has from the start, and continues to be, solely about removing evil from our world. We removed Hussein from his seat of power and toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan. We have put in place democratic systems in these countries, that while still in their infancy and far from perfect, will create a safer, more stable world. The Middle East has been under evil dictatorial regimes for far too long, and President Bush and Vice President Cheney should be given Nobels for their work in bringing this region to long sought after peace but removing the evil dictator Hussein from power and ensuring via his execution that he will never reclaim that seat. This war is a great chance for the world to right the wrongs of the past administrations, for instance, Clinton not having the guts to do what was needed in the Middle East, Carter and his incompetence, and all of the other slack-jawed democrats who violated their oaths of office by failing to secure America against the mounting threats that culminated on 9/11/01.

By Sherry Baby

November 19, 2007 4:54 PM | Link to this

If we outlaw abortions, then only feti will be outlaws. (in vitro vito corleone)

By HIDT

November 19, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this

Aquagirl, Alexis is really former national security adviser Frances Townsend. This is her new job.

Welcome Alexis, er, Frances and good luck!

By Anne

November 19, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this

It’s always such a pleasure to see Christ’s love in print…. You ‘gentlemen’ are sure quick to throw around accusations and name calling.

Maybe the issue shouldn’t be abortion, but forced neutering of all male children. The sperm banks have plenty to last us well into the next century.

Can we start the line with all the posters here?

Stay out of my uterus. And I’ll stay away from your testicles. I promise.

By Sherry Baby

November 19, 2007 5:05 PM | Link to this

If we outlaw abortions, then only feti will be outlaws. (in utero unibomber)

By Peter

November 19, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this

Wow get this…….

“By Alexis

“November 19, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this

Peter, the war in Iraq is not about oil, it is about bringing democracy to that country, removing an evil dictator from power and oil, that is just liberal propaganda.”

Hahaha I guess we all are going to run to every country that has a dictator and ” KILL ” him and free the people….that should be a great plan……of course how to fund it…..

I guess like we are funding this war today….. make the Non Aborted babies pay for it !

HAHAHA……. well that said, and you can pretend anything you want I guess about the war…… ??? Where are the Weapons of Mass destruction ???

I see the ” Moral Right” really in a dilemma……

We actually have GOOD Killing and BAD Killing…….

See they want it both ways…… pray on Sunday, then support Killing the rest of the week.

Got to have oil for BIG CARS, and Huge Houses, wouldn’t make any sense to have renewable energy !

Gee who was that Religious Right Winger that died recently who spoke about about ” Taking out the leader of a South American Country ? “

Yes he stated, taking him out would be cheaper than WAR!

Sounds funny when Religious Right Wing Proponents say we should be assonating other countries leaders.

Perhaps Alexis we should be trying to unite the Unites states for a change….. Perhaps we should pay attention to our own.

When are we going to restore the hopes of the poor Americans?

There was NO reason to invade Iraq, where did that come from anyway?

911 ? Makes sense again, we get attacked by Bin Laden, so we go and invade Iraq.

That doesn’t fly Alexis, we didn’t go there to free the people, we went there because of “WOMD” !

By the way do you have a wish list of countries we should invade so we are…….. “restoring the hopes of the citizens of that part of the world.”

You don’t have too…George Bush is doing that for all of us…. with his denial of the environment, we can KILL the entire world……. not just some other foreign country 2000 miles away !

By naomi s.

November 19, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this

Alexis I have one word for you—OIL and MURDER!!! Pizzaro wanted gold so they poured it down his THROAT!! We should take that murdering FRAT BOY and WATERboard him and make him GARGLE OIL until he can’t gargle EVER AGAIN!!!!!

GET IT????!!!!!

By J

November 19, 2007 5:19 PM | Link to this

hello…this is a comment board about ABORTION, NOT the war. Why do we have to keep making every issue relate to the war?? Know why the movie Lions for Lambs isn’t doing well? BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR IT! Go rant somewhere else where it actually relates to the topic.

By Elizabeth

November 19, 2007 5:20 PM | Link to this

Yes, I’ve changed my mind. I used to be staunchly pro-life. Then my daugher was pregnant with a malformed fetus. The decision was agonizing, but she and her husband chose to terminate the pregnancy. I stopped judging any one who had an abortion for any reason that very day. It was a private matter between her, her husband and God—not something that Jim Wooten or Mike Huckabee needed to be concerned with.

By Alexis

November 19, 2007 5:22 PM | Link to this

naomi s I realize you are trying to make a point, but any validity that you may have had behind it was negated by your use of the phrase “one word” and then your utterance of two seperate and distinct words. Please, do not attempt to disuade me of my belief in our JUST and RIGHTEOUS war on terror. It is the right thing to do, for all concerned.

By Dusty

November 19, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this

Oh long winded Peter from lala land @5:06

Please run over to Waffle House and get a waffle. Your blood sugar must be low.

I gather from you that George W. Bush is killing the whole world by denial of the environment. And Al Gore is going to save us!! hmmmm

And we have no enemies in Iraq. We are just playing Hide’n’seek with terrorists.

Peter, I fear for you. Methinks thee are going a bit blind or worse, a bit nuts.

By Glenn

November 19, 2007 5:27 PM | Link to this

Peter,

You are the rock upon which we should build our church. There is indeed a school of Christian thought which holds that the crucial revelation in the Christian Bible is that there is such a thing as “good violence”, which is that violence which drives out “bad violence”. The best known scriptural indicator of this possibility is the Naz’s violent scourging of the Temple, which represented the “bad violence” of blood sacrifice, of sacrificial religion that would soon come to kill God. Some in this school, the Girardian school, believe that all religious institutions are today once again sacrificial (violent) in their nature.

By Truman Reid PhD

November 19, 2007 5:31 PM | Link to this

Our representatives cannot fathom the idea that morality cannot be legislated. Write all of the laws you wish, some women will have an abortion. Some men will demand a woman get an abortion. It is far better for each state to make their own laws regarding this subject, if it must be governed by a law in the first place. The representatives have more power than they need now. We have so many laws they cannot be enforced. Adding a constitutional amendment will not ensure a woman will not get an abortion.

Just how many citizens do they think is enough in prison. There are thousands in prison with long sentences for relatively minor infractions of the law now. So if we had a constitutional amendment making abortion illegal just what would be the consequences if a woman had an abortion? Would we let a pedophile or murderer or rapist out to put the woman in prison. Would that prevent her from doing it again. And what about abortions for expecting mothers who are likely to die in child birth. Or a woman whose pregnancy is a result of rape. Would they be exempt. Difficult questions must be raised and answered before we jump off that bridge.

By Sherry Baby

November 19, 2007 5:32 PM | Link to this

If we outlaw abortions, then only feti will be outlaws. (Osama in mama)

By Aquagirl

November 19, 2007 5:33 PM | Link to this

Oh, now you’ve really done it, Fran—-uh, Alexis. The phrase “It Is The Right Thing To Do”(tm) belongs to THE Captain Freedom. You might want to run while you can from his all-American manliness.

By Dusty

November 19, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this

Uh oh.5:52…Sherry Baby is PoFo and he’s running all over the place.

Closing time will save us..

By Peter

November 19, 2007 5:44 PM | Link to this

Gotta love it Glen….Good violence surely means “GO for the OIL “…. as going into Iraq had nothing to do with going after “Bad Violence”….unless you say we are an example of ” Bad Violence ” then I may agree with you !

Let’s make up more WARS as was stated by Alexis ! Please we need to Free the world !

Hi Dusty, nice to hear from you….did you say something today ?

Hey J….. abortion and the war are exactly the same…… MURDER ….. I guess it really is about who makes the decision, based on what they want of course !

Ahhhhh the WAR on Terror……. well I say if we actually stopped invading countries and went after the guys who committed the 911 horrors, I would say we are actually fighting the war on Terror !

By @@

November 19, 2007 5:44 PM | Link to this

Hellooooo…Aquagirl @ 1:43:

By: Aquagirl

So we have @@’s touching 12:40 “keep your legs together, slut”.

Essscuuuuuse me, I never used the word “slut”. I followed a statement containing the word “ladies”, you’re the one that called them sluts.

I would never call any female a slut.

Shame on you.

Don’t I get credit for following the advice of the environmentalists?

There’s only one surefire way to prevent pregnancy, other than destroying the little ones before birth, and that’s…take “one aspirin and hold it tightly between our knees” and no waiting for calls in the morning.

Whew! Sure glad I got that squared away.

By BS Aplenty

November 19, 2007 5:45 PM | Link to this

SPERM BANK - A Day in the Life of Your Average “Swimmer”

An undisclosed Sperm Bank somewhere in Atlanta

Group of Swimmers: (backstroking in a test tube) we-e-e-e-e-e-e-e, we-e-e-e-e-e-e-e…

Anne, the Lab Technician: (looking through microscope & talking to herself) Wow, look at those guys go. I think I just saw a swimmer do a back one-and-a-half round-off with a half twist - impressive group.

CDC Lab Supervisor: Anne, we’ve had a “neutering incident” in downtown Atlanta. Appears we have a need for a SWAT (Swimmers Waiting for A T**) team. Get a batch of your “boys” and go to the scene.

Later at the Georgia Aquarium

Anne: (to Aquarium Director) I understand we’ve had an “incident”.

AD: Yes, the Beluga whales have been going at again and the female thinks the male’s been cheatin’ on her and she needs some pregnancy assistance from you SWAT team.

Anne: Uh, Chief, I think there’s been a communications disconnect somewhere in the lab. I’ve got human swimmers here, not Beluga swimmers…

At the Beluga whale tank

Aquarium Staffer (to test tube) OK, fellas, go get her…

Group of Swimmers: Help, help, help…

By Glenn

November 19, 2007 5:45 PM | Link to this

Dr. Reid,

I’m middle-aged, and I’ve heard all my life the Goldwaterish chestnut about how morality cannot be legislated.

Laws are legislated. Things proscribed in law got into the statutes by legislative action. The things proscribed usually are proscribed on moral grounds. Hence the nod in the foyer of the U.S. Supreme Court Building to the Decalogue, and in the Court Chambers, a bust of Moses the Lawgiver. To say that “we are a nation of laws” is not so much to say that we are a law-abiding People, as it is to celebrate the fact that we make the laws via our elected legislators. The prohibitions in our laws were largely put there for moral reasons.

Could you please give an example of something prohibitted by law that was not made law by legislative action?

If you cannot so name a law, then aren’t we to conclude, contra your familiar assertion, that morality can be legislated because it happens every season that legislators are in session?

By Sarah

November 19, 2007 5:52 PM | Link to this

I’m a teacher. I teach kids all everyday that are dirty, hungry, and emotionally neglected. Their mothers don’t care, they don’t know where their father is and if they get any attention it is to be yelled at. It is nearly impossible to reach them at school and someday they will probably be in prison and druggies. I think if we said it was okay to decide whether or not you want a child we wouldn’t have suffering children. As sad as it is for those who want children and can’t have them, it is better for those millions of children not to suffer. They would have been better off aborted and the mothers fixed instead of breeding out of control and not taking care of them. It’s also a lot cheaper for America to pay for an abortion than 18 years of food, clothing, and shelter and then prison for the rest of their lives. It sounds cold but when I see some of those kids I wish they didn’t have to go home at night and so do they. Is that really the life we want these children living? Is that life really better than an abortion when they are not even fully developed? At least then the suffering would be temporary.

By Canbuhay

November 19, 2007 5:56 PM | Link to this

Our organization works at changing hearts and minds on abortion.

We have a whole stack of surveys from talks we give where pro-abortion choicers or those wishy washy on abortion are now opposed to it. One student who protested against one of our displays helped organize the same pro-life display a few years later (and that’s just one conversion story). Check out ccbrinfo org for more great stories.

Given all the facts of the debate, including focusing on the main question that needs to be answered in this debate, which is what is the unborn? (an objective not subjective question), the average person will side with the pro-lifers.

All we need to do is be willing to examine all the evidence, something I suggest you should do Jim before assuming that no one has ever changed their minds on the issue.

By Glenn

November 19, 2007 5:59 PM | Link to this

Hi Dusty and @@

You missed, among other things, a lot of disembodied bandy about women controlling their this body part or that, and their having ownership of their own bodies, which they will not permit men to appropriate, etc. Whaddya make of that ’70s talk?

Radical feminism says that it is the paternalistic structure which encourages women to regard themselves as having and commanding their bodies because to appropriate or exploit (as in capitalize upon and steal empowerment from—a woman’s body you must first separate it from her self-perception. So, precisely what we have abundantly on display here today: women falling into the trap of believing that they have bodies, as over against the plain truth that they are bodies. It’s supposedly a misogynistic way of duping women into believing that they must battle to keep their bodies, when in fact their battle, to the disadvantage of men, is already won.

What of that?

By Glenn

November 19, 2007 6:10 PM | Link to this

Sarah @ 5:52,

I don’t doubt that it’s still as bad as you say, because when I last worked in your field the public schools certainly answered to your description. On the other hand, you are a pitch-perfect example of the schoolteacher subculture of parent bashing. Sarah, human beings do not “breed out of control” unless you are engaged in human husbandry, a specialty in these parts 150 years ago. I suspect that you are so engaged, in a sense. Hence your complaint of being overwhelmed with raw material for the social engineering to which you’d aspired. You sound very tired indeed, I’m sure deservedly so. May I respectfully suggest that the next time your district offers early retirement incentives, you take advantage of the offer?

By lovelyliz

November 20, 2007 8:28 AM | Link to this

Abortion restrictions would only apply to the little people.