The Reproductive Right

The most nausea-inducing and (unintentionally) comic quote of the mid-term campaign so far comes from Carly Fiorina, the ousted CEO … Continued

The most nausea-inducing and (unintentionally) comic quote of the mid-term campaign so far comes from Carly Fiorina, the ousted CEO of Hewlett Packard who won the California Republican senatorial primary last week. Explaining her anti-abortion stance to the San Francisco Chronicle, Fiorina said, “I myself was not able to have children of my own, and so I know what a precious gift life is. My husband’s mother was told to abort him. She spent a year in the hospital after his birth. My husband is the joy of her life, and he is the rock of my life. So these experiences have shaped my view.” So all of those pro-choice feminist moms don’t know what a precious gift life is? Or perhaps Fiorina wouldn’t be so opposed to abortion if her husband had turned out to be a disappointment to her or his mother? There is nothing more pathetic than the spectacle of someone who probably would have been a “moderate” Republican 20 years ago trying to cozy up to the Christian right and the Tea Party by discovering strong anti-abortion convictions. But the craven spectacle of female candidates like Fiorina using their womanhood to bolster their anti-choice credentials underlines the important fact that even at a time when the economy is said to be the overwhelming problem on everyone’s mind, cultural issues continue to play a critical role in American politics.

Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor at National Review, hailed this election as the year of the pro-life woman. “These women will make it easier for pro-lifers to discuss the issue in the terms we want to discuss it,” she writes, “as a plea for justice for a vulnerable group.” What this means is that women on the right, by virtue of possessing uteruses, can pretend to be less opportunistic and callous than the kind of right-wing men who pushed a bill through the Oklahama State Legislature that protects doctors from malpractice suits if, in the interest of discouraging abortions, they lie to women about birth defects discovered through sonograms or amniocentesis. A woman claims to place a higher value on life because she couldn’t have children herself, and we are supposed to credit her with moral authority because…why? If my grandparents died before reaching age 65, does that give me the authority to suggest that Social Security and Medicare ought to be abolished?

Such cultural/religious issues–or, more precisely, debates over whether the government has the right to stick its nose into your most intimate decisions–have little to do these days with the gender of politicians. Liberal Democrats are (with some exceptions) pro-choice and pro-gay rights. Conservative Republicans (with almost no exceptions, because they can’t get nominated otherwise) are anti-choice and anti-gay rights. Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, liberated from right-wing Republicanism and now running for the Senate from Florida as an independent, vetoed a terrible bill requiring all women (unless they could prove they were victims of rape or incest) to pay for a sonogram before obtaining an abortion. As the Republican/Tea Party candidate, he wouldn’t have been able to do that.

Mainstream journalists have taken great pains over the past year to distinguish between the Christian right and the Tea Party, and it is true that a few tea partiers, particularly Rand Paul in Kentucky, are not Christian soldiers but anti-government libertarians. In a practical sense, though, there is a huge overlap between the Christian right and the tea party movement, between the Republican Party and the Tea Party. One of the signature achievements of the Christian right over the past 30 years has been to meld traditional anti-tax and anti-government positions with support for government intervention on behalf of the morality articulated by conservative Christians. This was not the case for earlier generations of Christian fundamentalist politicians, most notably William Jennings Bryan, who was a biblical literalist, an anti-evolutionist, and an economic populist. For the present generation, though government is bad if it’s taxing you to help the poor, but it’s good if it prevents you from marrying a partner of the same sex, obtaining contraceptives if you’re unmarried, or having an abortion.

Sarah Palin, the Tea Party’s Red Queen, is the personification of the two strands in right-wing thought and politics. And Palin is the mistress of the art of claiming moral standing as a result of what she does with her reproductive system. Remember all the times she exhibited her Down syndrome son on the campaign trail in 2008? Fiorina’s repellent attempt to bolster her anti-abortion credentials by lamenting her own infertility is directly inspired by Palin’s message, “Look at me, I’m a wonderful woman because that I had a child with a mental disability. And you women who had abortions in the same circumstance are bad, bad, bad. “

Born-again right-wing women like Fiorina, who was actually born in 1954, and Palin, born in 1964, are just young enough to have benefited from all of the opportunities that the feminist movement fought so hard to open to all women in the 1970s, without having had to contribute anything. The anti-government ideology of these women is particularly hypocritical, since they would be nowhere without the anti-sex discrimination laws that opened doors in education, employment and business to women of their generations. Palin wouldn’t have had a high school basketball team to play on, or have made it onto local TV, without the legislation inspired by the women’s movement. Fiorina wouldn’t have become a CEO without the women’s movement. Of course, the shareholders of Hewlett Packard during her six-year tenure would have been better off without Fiorina’s stewardship. She was sacked by the board in 2005 after HP stock (which has now largely recovered) lost two-thirds of its value under her leadership. She left with a $21 million golden parachute, thereby proving that at least some women in corporate America can be rewarded for doing their executive jobs just as incompetently as men.

These right-wing women politicians are anti-feminists who have benefited personally from feminism. Now they are allying themselves with the Good Old Boys of right-wing religion and right-wing economics and calling themselves pro-life and “free market” feminists. And right-wing male blowhards, whose mouths are more accustomed to saying “feminazi” than “feminist,” are eager to anoint these women as standbearers for the cause of Bible-based government intervention in Americans’ private lives and government neglect of the public good.

Those atheists who are also libertarian conservatives ought to think about everything inside the package if they like the glittery anti-government wrapping enveloping Tea Party/Republican candidates this year. Whether that candidate has an XX or an XY chromosomal structure, he or she is equally beholden to people who want to make their morality the law of the land. These women, like their male counterparts, are opportunists with no shame. Let’s give them a big shout-out for defining equal opportunity down!

About

  • Secular

    Well written, as usual Susan provides insights that miss the average Joe/jane Six-pack. One thing I would like to also draw for the rationalist and atheists who may be tempted to follow the right wing nut jobs. remember all the progressives who backed the Iranian theocracy against the Shah, thinking that Khomeini is a moderate under all that Islamic facade. They not only paid with their lives but had facilitated thousands of deaths by the regime and had relegated the millions to the brutal theocracy and Sharia. Do you want it to be the fate of US of A?

  • WmarkW

    Abortion is another of those issues that the Right uses to get people to vote against what should be their political interests.Southern bigots and religious Catholics had been partisan Democrats until the 60s came along and the business-oriented Republican party needed new constituencies that would vote against its own pocketbook. Now, they’re trying to get the Hispanic vote without increasing their wages.OTOH, we do need to get away from the liberal belief that wage disparity is prima facie evidence that employment discrimination is rampant. There are enough differences between men and women, most of which should men better economic actors, to expect wage equality for work that isn’t EXACTLY the same.

  • WmarkW

    Sorry, last sentence below should read:There TOO MANY differences between men and women, most of which should men better economic actors, to expect wage equality for work that isn’t EXACTLY the same.

  • dh1976

    It seems that by the week, the month and the election cycle, the curtain gets pulled back a little bit more on what Brent Budkowsky has correctly labeled the ‘polyester populism’ of the Tea Party Movement. And as it does, it becomes more and more obvious just how pervasive and powerful corporate control of our country, our government and our lives has become READ MORE>

  • Athena4

    As a woman who has struggled with infertility – and a woman in the technology world – I was really offended by Ms. Fiorina’s comments. The truth is that her infertility and lack of children has been very, very good to her. If she had children, she would not have risen to become the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. She may have been a VP, but she would not have been selected for the top spot. And, of course, look what she did with that. HP was a stellar performer until she took over. Then she led it right into the toilet. Not only that, laid off thousands of American workers and outsourced their jobs to India and China. Funny, when Ms. Fiorina was an advisor to the McCain campaign, she was pro-choice. Now she’s pro-life. Gimme a break! Yes, women who are infertile know what gifts children are. And we’re often upset when we hear about child abuse, neglect, or abandonment because we KNOW that we could be better mothers than that. I suppose that, like her mentor Sarah Palin, Ms. Fiorina plans to cut California social services that would help low income and/or abused children? How “pro-life” is that?

  • Susan_Jacoby

    Thank you, Athena4, for mentioning something that I omitted. These right-wing women are against everything that makes it easier for women to combine motherhood and a career. Publicly financed day care? A government plot. Access to affordable health care for all? Socialism. They’re “pro-life”–as long as the fetus is still in the uterus.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    SUSAN,You have, again, been removed from the main page, evidently to make room for “Biblically Responsible Sexuality.”This is terribly unfair to those of us who wish to be Biblically irresponsible, not to mention a=Biblical.Farnaz

  • Athena4

    Oooh, I got a shout-out from Susan! * Happy dance *

  • kaylancor

    Women who are pro-life do NOT betray womanhood or motherhood. It is the feminists who have ruined what liberation for women really means. In fact, many (if not most) abortions are done because the woman was PRESSURED into it OR did not have support from the boyfriend/husband (or parents who find out about the pregnancy). So, abortion, is actually a STEP BACKWARDS where women are TOLD to get “rid of it” because the boyfriend/husband or parents are SO SELFISH they can’t imagine the idea of supporting their own loved one and helping with a new baby.

  • Jason75

    Elective (lifestyle preserving) Abortion is WRONG! The Pro-abortion crowd need to get a clue!

  • revbookburn

    Good article that is very necessary. There were always women in the anti-choice groups, as well as the fetal terrorist networks. Palin and Fiorina are good to have as figureheads because it is obvious how mentally unbalanced they are. They’ll finally take down their movement of Taliban-wannabees.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    She left with a $21 million golden parachute, thereby proving that at least some women in corporate America can be rewarded for doing their executive jobs just as incompetently as men.Yet, she is a Stanford graduate with advanced degrees, parents well educated, father, a law professor and federal judge appointed by NIxon.And then there is this from Wikipedia:”Sneed was part of a controversial three-judge panel that replaced Whitewater special prosecutor Robert B. Fiske with Kenneth Starr in 1994. Fiske was replaced after he found there were insufficient grounds to bring charges against the Clinton Administration. The two other judges were David B. Sentelle and John D. Butzner. Sentelle was a Reagan appointee from North Carolina whose political patron was Jesse Helms. Butzner was a holdover from the LBJ era. Political conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh, had called for Fiske’s removal.”Charming.Then there remains confusion about gender roles. Gloria Steinem said, “We now have the opportunity to become the men we wanted to marry.” And some have become them and married. Others remain confused.Women, on average, earn less than men who do the same work. The glass ceiling may be cracked but it is holding up well.Confused people like Fiorina and Palen with their Christian right-wing politics that seems far removed from the NT are an interesting symptom of identity confusion, rife nowadays. Nothing fits with anything else.

  • beachgolfer869

    For a rational thinker you sound very passionate about the opportunity to kill babies. Tim Tebow’s mother was told to abort him. I’m sure she, and he, is very thankful she did not take that “rational” advice.

  • PSolus

    “In fact, many (if not most) abortions are done because the woman was PRESSURED into it OR did not have support from the boyfriend/husband (or parents who find out about the pregnancy).”That is something that you have been told to believe.

  • PSolus

    “For a rational thinker you sound very passionate about the opportunity to kill babies. Tim Tebow’s mother was told to abort him. I’m sure she, and he, is very thankful she did not take that “rational” advice.”It is much easier to believe what you are told than it is to attempt to understand reality.

  • peterlounsbury

    How anyone can peel “not good” from the statement you quoted…”I myself was not able to have children of my own, and so I know what a precious gift life is. My husband’s mother was told to abort him. She spent a year in the hospital after his birth. My husband is the joy of her life, and he is the rock of my life. So these experiences have shaped my view.”…is mind boggling! Do you actually believe that only women who support abortion can be feminists? That’s rather biased and presumptive, no?Yes, a man made this comment. No, I’m not blind, deaf, dumb and unable to see things that are obvious to any person who uses the brain that God gave him.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    It seems that pro-choice and pro-life advocates cannot have a rationale dialogue. This could be due to the former wishing to tell the latter that slavery ended with the Confederacy, and the latter calling the former murderers.

  • peterlounsbury

    Actually farnaz_mansouri2, to have a rational debate you need to have a debate first. A debate where all the facts are allowed into the discussion, not just the ones that don’t paint abortion in every light that it actually occurs in. Rape? Incest? Health of the mother? Yes to all, but only a fraction of the total picture. It is the pro=abortion zealots that don’t want to have a full and rational discussion, not the other way around. I don’t know of a single pro-lifer that doesn’t want all the facts on the table, and likewise know of no pro-abortion zealots who do want all the facts on the table.I don’t expect you to get it, but it is in fact reality.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    peterlounsbury,The question is can we be civil.

  • PSolus

    Debates and dialogue are meaningless.The only person who can determine how a woman handles her pregnancy is the woman herself.Just as Palin was the only person who could determine whether or not to bring her pregnancy to term, knowing that she would give birth to a downs syndrome baby, and Mrs. Tebow was the only person who could determine whether or not she should risk her life to bring her pregnancy to term, each pregnant woman is the only person who can determine whether to bring her pregnancy to term or to have an abortion.What anyone else thinks, in all of the cases above, is irrelevant.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    “Debates and dialogue are meaningless.”Psolus, I think, rather, that debates and/or dialogue are impossible on this issue. Still, I’m always willing to give them a chance. Good practice, in case I have to negotiate a peace settlement between the US and China.

  • peterlounsbury

    If by civil you mean that truth is regarded highly and is not labeled as hate, then I believe that a civil debate is very possible. However if the truth and the details regarding the truth are not allowed to flow freely in a debate, then it probably wont be very productive.It might surprise you that I support the legalization of marijuana and oppose abortion laws as they currently stand. It sounds contradictory to many folks, but I assure that it is not. I believe in freedom of choice as much as any pro-choicer. But I also believe that there are logical, rational, ethical and moral limits to what constitutes a personal choice. I don’t have the answers, but I certainly welcome a free and truth filled debate. The act of discrediting people we don’t agree with must end, and the dawn of an era where the debate is the debate must begin where the truth is regarded as the most important component of the debate.If then after all of the facts being known that we decide as a nation, whatever falls out of that tree, then we would have accomplished a great thing. Currently we have a court opinion that drives the greater question, but the law has never actually been crafted, voted upon and enacted. If folks want to say that the choice to abort is a woman’s right to make without any other consideration, then our Constitution should directly address the question by amendment. If not, Roe vs Wade is only as strong as it’s ability to survive the latest challenge in the Supreme Court. The status quo may have worked up until now for the pro-choice crowd, but can change.Like I said the pro-choice crowd has always welcomed a full debate with all the facts laid out on the table, and a Constitutional address the only way to solve the question once and for all.

  • peterlounsbury

    Correction: Like I said the pro-life crowd has always welcomed a full debate with all the facts laid out on the table, and a Constitutional address the only way to solve the question once and for all.

  • PSolus

    “It might surprise you that I support the legalization of marijuana…”Do you think that to achieve that goal, “our Constitution should directly address the question by amendment”?Do you think that we need a separate constitutional amendment for every right that we want to exercise?

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    peterlounsbury:Before we get to the Constitution, I would suggest we begin with morality. And, no, I don’t think your support of decriminalizing marijuana necessarily conflicts with your pro-life position.

  • politbureau

    The wailing and gnashing of teeth in your diatribe says more about your own inner conflicts on the issue of abortion than its does about Fiorina’s supposedly “repellent” comments that her infertility makes her even more grateful her husband escaped being aborted when his mother had the chance. And while the issue of being able to control one’s own body is an undeniably powerful argument, the fact that unborn children are typically able to survive premature birth from the sixth month on negates at least a third of that argument, if not more. The point being that there’s a profound need for a rational resolution to the question as to where to draw the line between a person’s right to control her own body and the undeniable presence of a living human being in utero after some point and it’s neither the present, heavy-handed pro-life position nor the ghoulish pro-choice position.

  • JayS99

    I think there are two questions that always have to be raised during discussions such as this:

  • DGSPAMMAIL

    I’m anti-abortion, but pro-choice. When people say they are pro-life except in the case of rape, incest, the mother’s life, etc., then they are pro-choice too. They just want to make control the choice of others. I assume they think it’s easier for a mother that has been raped to give up a baby than for one who knows that she’d never be able to live up to her responsibilites as a mother.

  • rbaldwin2

    Just perpetuating the fairy tales I see… What a complete hoax on the peoples of the planet…You people are a JOKE!

  • oryssman

    Wow, Susan Jacoby is usually a model of moderate political discourse, but it appears that the fact some women dissent from the “orthodox” feminist line, especially with regards to the abortion license, is unsettling to her. I do agree with Jacoby that the protection of human life cannot be on some sort of subjective statement of emotion such as Palin and Fiorina appear to be doing. Still, the question is: Who Decides?Stripped of all the flowery talk of a woman, her “doctor” (usually the one that will only get paid if the decision is to abort) and her god, what abortion is about is the unlimited PUBLIC license for the use of PRIVATE lethal force. At no other stage of human development is such a license granted. Abortion, simply put is the powerful being allowed to destroy the powerless, and that lessens our humanity.

  • ibhernandez2003

    To both these morons – I only hope for inoperable cancer on their ‘privates’ for themselves and all females in their families.They do not deserve anything better as they choose to force their views on others.

  • Rationalista

    Susan is right on, as she usually is. Palin and Fiorina are for “life” when that life is contained in another human being. Once, born, however, you’re on your own–Palin and Fiorina would never support state run daycare for everyone, and they’d slash Headstart funding, if given the chance. They’d never support more comprehensive birth control programs here or overseas. They’re even against healthcare reform, and we know how much healthcare would be needed for babies born with disabilities. Of course, they’ve got theirs, so to hell with everyone else, I suppose.

  • troutcor

    There will always be people willing to sell out their own people for a little taste of power. South Africa found blacks willing to accept apartheid in exchange for being made king of a bantustan, Hitler had no shortage of Quislings and the U.S. has backed legions of Shahs, Diems and Somozas. The process is the same ideologically. Fiorina and Palin are nice window-dressing for the GOP’s Neanderthal agenda, but they care no more about women’s rights than Condi Rice did about Iraqi women and children. Of course the real irony is that the GOP doesn’t care about banning abortion, either, as posters here have pointed out. It is merely an issue to get non-thinkers to vote against their own interests.

  • Chops2

    Spidey:Are they brainless? How many times should a person be told that contraceptives are there to prevent unwanted pregnancies?”This may be the most intelligent thing u have said. Unfortunately, many also believe that even contraception is a sin so its a no win situation is many religions.Give the evolution stuff a rest buddy, this article is about abortion, lets keep to some semblence of the topic.

  • MarkDavidovich

    People often reach different conclusions following similar experiences. It is therefore unsurprising that Ms Jacoby believes that she would not have formed attitudes towards abortion like those of Ms Fionna had Ms Jacoby experienced the childlessness (etc.) of Ms Fionna. But what is truly vomit inducing here is neither woman’s conclusions drawn, or putatively drawn, from those experiences. Why must is Ms Jacoby deprecate and suggest as insincere what Ms Fionna considers to be the significance of her experiences? No, I don’t suppose that all childless women would or should respond as did Ms Fionna. Each of those women has a mind of her own, as well as a lifetime of experience beyond childlessless to inform her position on abortion. It would be interesting; for them to reflect upon how those lifetimes of thought and experience have shaped their opinions on abortion just as it has been interesting to hear Ms Fionna reflect on hers. But one must always bear in ;mind that what we learn from experience seldom follows from those experiences as logical necessity. Such deductions are not strictly logical deductions, but it is a school child’s logical error to treat them as if they were. What one person learns from his or her experience is falsified just because others can or do learn the contrary from similar experience.

  • lilo623

    She says pro-lifers are “anti-feminist”. Not true! Feminism means having the freedom to be whom you choose to be. She seems to think you must be a leftist or a non-Christian to be a feminist. Not true! I choose to be whom I want to be – this is feminism!

  • BobbyYarush

    I’m coming to the conclusion that woman in politics are going to be much worse then men…

  • steveiev

    Why does Susan refer to them as “anti-choice”? Then we should refer to her as “anti-life”. Typical left word games.

  • VidOmnia

    Susan is so freaking clueless that she thinks Ramesh Ponnuru is a woman. Nice work, champ – research is your friend.

  • John1263

    These women are seeking to use taxpayer dollars and the crushing power of Big Government to intrude into the private lives of citizens, take away their personal liberty, and make their decisions for them. At the same time, they want to use the power of Big government to strip citizens of any method they have of protecting themselves from the overwhelming power of Big Business at the same time. I don’t care if they wear dresses or look like naughty librarians or what have you. These women are a danger to freedom, to liberty, the the American way of life, and to our Constitutionally protected rights to religious freedom and the ability to nmake our personal decisions in private.

  • John1263

    The “word game” is not anti-choice.” These women are anti-choice.They want the Big government to make your choices for you. The word game is “pro-life.” Everyone is pro-life, excepting a few deranged psychopaths. But that is not the issue. Most people find abortion repugnant, but that again is not the issue. The issue is who gets to decide when faced with an unwanted, unplanned, or dangerous pregnancy? You, or the Big Government? THAT is why there is Choice, and anti-choice. You choose, or you do not get to choose because Big Government won’t let you choose.

  • VidOmnia

    Wow, I can practically hear the hyperventilating. Better relax a little – you might have a stroke. And yes, Sarah Palin actually represents the view of a majority of women who call themselves “pro-life”. And the trend is stronger among younger women than older.

  • thebump

    More hateful, hysterical ranting and screeching from the nasty old atheist.Abortion is not a “cultural” issue, a “social” issue or a “religious” issue. It is the most basic, irreducible human rights issue: When/why is it okay to deprive an absolutely innocent human being of her right to life?

  • andrew23boyle

    I am pro-choice if for no other reason than I believe that to outlaw abortion won’t do anything other than drive it underground and make it more dangerous, so please don’t misconstrue what I am about to say as an attack on abortion rights because it is not.Am I the only one who see a terrible doulbe-standard between abortion and child support? I believe a woman SHOULD have total reproductive control over her own body but that if she is to have total power than SHE must take TOTAL resposnibility. This is NOT the case, however. As things stand now, the father has no legal say whatsoever in whether or not to keep the child but IF the mother decides to keep it, then the man is required to pay child support EVEN IF HE DID NOT WANT THE CHILD!The final choice as to whether or not to bring the child to term should of course rest with the mother. If, however, she wants the father’s support in raising the child then she should be required to notify him within three months of becoming pregnant and have him sign a contract agreeing to support the child. If he does not want to support the child, the mother may still of course have the child but the father will have NO legal obligation to either the mother or child. In other words, WOMEN will have to accept TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY for their choices, instead of being able to have a child that the father did not want and then force him to support her regardless of his choice.Why is this important? One of the main reasons for abortion rights is so that young girls who make a mistake and become pregnant have a choice to abort the fetus and thus not “screw up” the rest of their lives because they need to raise a child. Rather than have the child, she can go to college or what-have-you.If, however, the teenage girl in question decides to keep the baby and demand the father raise it, then HER CHOICE will “screw up” HIS life because even if he doesn’t want the child and would prefer she have an abortion, HE must still pay for HER choice. This is NOT right! A young man’s life can be messed up as much as a young woman’s by an unwanted pregnancy but while she can choose not to have the child and raise it, the choice is made for him!This injustice needs to be addressed.And before a bunch of radical feminists write back telling me how if “he didn’t want a baby, he shouldn’t have had sex in the first place”, please remember that that is EXACTLY the same argument often used against abortion rights by the pro-life crowd! It’s a double standard that disadvantages one group of citizen for the benefit of another, plain and simple.With total reproductive control SHOULD come total reproductive responsibility!

  • veloboldie

    Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land. Get over it tea baggers and “concerned mothers of America” lot. Florina almost run HP to the ground. What makes you all think she will not do the same for California? I left the Republican Party, because of the Christian fundamentalists “values” the party has adopted.

  • vballboy60

    It is hypocritical how Rushbo calls outspoken liberal women “Feminazis” but applauds loud-mouth Palin or others who are (respectfully?) outspoken Bible thumpers. The issue of choice will always reside with the woman. Jesus or the government or whoever else is a supposed higher power will always try to supplant the woman’s personal power of choice but it is up to the individual if she takes a pregnancy to full term or not, for whatever reason. If Christian Dominionists find a way to overturn Roe v. Wade and make all abortions illegla, then women will go back to the old days of back alley abortions. Why don’t Christian Domionists recongize that and discuss the morality of impsing that outcome when they want to imprint their religious laws on all Americans?America allows the freedom of religion which includes NONE AT ALL. Imposing sectarian Christian beliefs on all Americans is an affront to our individual liberty and shall never stand. How would Christian Dominionists like being told how to pray or which God was correct or what holy book was the correct one (and maybe it is not the Bible?). Obviously they don’t want religious requirements outside their sectarian Christian system imposed on themselves so they shouldn’t push their beliefs on other Americans. There are sects of Christianity that don’t agree on the same principles so whose to say that any one Christian is better or worse than another? How about if we agree that the state and the church are to remain seperate like we’ve been doing since America was created? Tea Partiers and Christian evangelicals ro Dominionists don’t realize that when you allow religion into government, the government may adopt a religion in conflict with your personal religious choice and that would opposite the idea of American liberty and pursuit of happiness.

  • falltillfly

    The reality is that abortions kill babies. That is all there is to it. It is murder, and if you think murder is wrong than you cannot rationally support abortion “rights.” There is no such thing as “anti-choice.” There are many possible choices that women can make regarding reproduction including birth control, abstinence. If a woman uses birth control and gets pregnant anyway that is not rationale for an abortion, that is simply the risk she (and the guy) took in having sex before being ready to have children. It’s about knowing the potential consequences of your actions.

  • andrew23boyle

    Communism and atheism have NOTHING in common. Communism is a political philosophy and ethos. Atheism is not.Atheism consists solely in the lack of belief in a god or gods. That is ALL! If one does not believe in a god then one is an atheist. Atheism makes NO positive knowledge claims. NONE. Atheism does not call for redistribution of wealth, the dictatorship of the proletariate or ANY other political or social policy or program. NONE. Once again, atheism is NOTHING more or less then the absence of a belief in a god or gods.Most communists are atheists but not all atheists are communists. Some atheists are libertarians, some are conservatives, some are liberals, some are fasicsts, some are non-political and so on because atheism is not an ethos or philosophy.

  • James10

    To SPEDERMEAN2 ….Dang, you can’t even figure out why women have abortions and you think you’ve figured out the “myth” of evolution?The three “arguments” are flawed from the outset. And the conclusion the only probable explanation is there is a Supremely intelligent being is a religious conclusion not a scientific conclusion. You may be the first person I’ve heard of that thinks photosynthesis is intelligence. More probable is your brain is plant like.Look on the bright side. You believe in throwing $ Billions at Israel that has elective abortion performed by their socialist health care system. And each and every one of those abortions is approved by a death panel that has a sitting rabbi. Further, you fill your house with Chinese made goods, including that PC system you type drivel, which ultimately supports forced abortions. I also find it laughable that you would claim it’s impossible for a single cell bacteria to become a two cell bacteria yet it’s obvious that a supremely intelligent being has always existed. Who was the intelligent designer of this supremely intelligent being. That’s the logic of the intelligent design theory. The universe is complex therefore someone must have designed it. The intelligent designer. QED. Not only is this intelligent designer supremely intelligent, it is supremely powerful and it has created the entire universe from nothing. Who designed it? Anyway, you pro-lifers keep on shoveling our tax dollars to Israel and keep on buying those Chinese goods.

  • momof20yo

    I find it incredibly funny that Ms. Morality Sarah Palin can conveniently forget that her own daughter was having sex before marriage, and had a child outside of marriage. (which goes against most moral and religious beliefs) Instead of feeling shame or embarrassment that her own daughter makes Sarah Palin look like the liar she is, Sarah Palin brags that her teenage pregnant daughter ‘didn’t have an abortion’. Ummmm . . . .Sarah . . . . .you should have been paying more attention to your daughter, and then maybe you would have known that she was having sex before marriage. It’s too bad that your “I’m too busy being somebody” ego-tripping ambitions resulted in a situation where your daughter could even consider having an abortion.

  • yvonneweston

    I don’t believe in abortion. But I can’t stand Pay-lin or Carly Fiorina. Those two “elitist” millionaires and their “smaller Government” talk have no problem with the Government forcing “Pay-lin and Fiorina’s beliefs” on the rest of the world.

  • roscym1

    FalltilFly: “Abortion kills bablies…” If a woman has a miscarriage in the first trimester, when about 95% of all abortions occur, do you have a funeral? Do you get a death certificate? No.

  • abbyandmollycats

    Just in case someone has missed my opinion, which I post whenever possible. The original effort to legalize abortion had as an underlying given the idea that abortion will always be with us. It was an effort to save one rather than lose two. A woman faced with a medically problematic pregnancy does not need anyone other than herself, her doctor and possibly her partner to make her decision. That is pro-choice; the woman chooses, not the government, not others she may ask to advise her, not her husband, not her parents, not strangers whose advice she did not seek, not anyone else. Responsible and respectful sexuality can be Biblically based, but does not have to be. Humans have the power to create human life. As a culture we have chosen to ignore that inconvenient fact to render sexual activity both trivial and all-pervasive, rather that the serious, but joyful, activity that it is. We are not alone in this error, but we have wider communication techniques. Women terminate pregnancies because of social and economic pressures. Even the so-called lifestyle abortions are the result of pressure. Applying legal pressure in an effort to counteract social and economic pressure merely drives abortion back underground. To reduce the number of abortions we must decide as a society to discourage irresponsible sexual behavior and eliminate the social and economic penalties for pregnancy and motherhood.

  • Stevenj974

    As for miscarraiges – many women I know mourn the lose of their baby this way. Perhaps there’s no funeral, but the pain lingers. It’s not an equivalent argument.The women that I know who have had abortions always go through post-partum depression and live with their regret the rest of their lives.I understand the argument for abortion in those cases of rape, incest, and clear severe abnormality of the baby. Although, it’s highly probable these babies can be placed with adoptive parents.I think the right to life is fundamental. I believe that abortion has become all too common a way of birth control. I’m glad my mother chose to “birth” me (although, I like to believe she never considered the alternative)

  • member8

    Countries with the best sex ed and the easiest access to abortion actually have the lowest abortion rates. Countries with the death penalty for abortion have higher abortion rates than we do. If we want to minimize abortion (they will never be eliminated) then we must follow the proven, rational methods of doing so rather than giving in to our emotional instincts.

  • PSolus

    “The reality is that abortions kill babies.”That is your belief, not reality.”It is murder, and if you think murder is wrong than you cannot rationally support abortion “rights.””That, also, is your belief, not a requirement for others. You cannot control what other people think, no matter how much you would like to.”There is no such thing as “anti-choice.””Yes, there is.”There are many possible choices that women can make regarding reproduction including birth control, abstinence.”And abortion; in any case, it is her choice to make, not yours.”If a woman uses birth control and gets pregnant anyway that is not rationale for an abortion,…”That is up to her, not you.

  • Stevenj974

    Okay – now that I read the rest of your article, it started out well enough, but ended up with straight up trash talk and lies, like a caged animal defending her last meal. Really, come back to earth.Who in America is denied contraceptives if they’re unmarried? It’s just not true.The above is the type of misleading lies the Author is accusing her targets of in her ranting article.

  • falltillfly

    What is this, the 5 year old’s debating tactic? You’re just going to negate everything I say and that’s the extent of your argument? Are you going to start saying “Yeah-huh!” and “Is too!” next?

  • rcc_2000

    Here are my abortion questions for the anti-abortionists. First off, the claim that abortion kills babies. Most abortions take place at 4 weeks, at that time the embryo still has a tail and cannot be distinguished from pig, rabbit, elephant, or chick embryo so what is it that makes this embryo, at this stage different than that of other mammals?Second, some of you speak of a Supremely Intelligent Creator, where is your evidence of that? It is called faith because without faith there is nothing that rationally can conclude the existence of a Supremely Intelligent Creator. For all we know we could be a petri dish experiment of some alien child. So, when you speak for the Supremely Intelligent Creator you speak from faith, when you speak from faith, almost by definition, you speak without facts. So please explain how the Supremely Intelligent Creator has communicated his/her/its wishes to you? Medically and scientifically speaking, the concept of “life begins at conception” is both correct and incorrect. Correct because the path to life has occurred, incorrect because the life is not viable and in the case of the first trimester, indistinguishable from other forms of life (well we do have gills at this point).All this said I would say that I am against third term and late term abortions. I am against them because at one point the fetus is indistinguishably human and the brain has developed beyond any other mammal.But based on some of the posters here, their logic should extend to male masturbation and the extinguishing potential human life.It is a touchy subject but when religion comes to play it becomes an irrational subject because religion is not based on rational thought but faith which by definition is not based on rational thought.One last thing, from sun gods to multi gods to the Christian God most religious people feel that their God is the only true God. But realize this, they all are based on faith and they all assume all the others are wrong. The God that can be explained is no true God, for we are too insignificant to understand God.-

  • silencedogoodreturns

    a shame Jacoby’s mom wasn’t as big an abortion supporter as her daughter is…

  • JohnQCitizen

    My problem with Fiorina is that she was a terrible manager at HP, the prototype of the deal-obsessed, stock-valuations-are-my-God MBA type who was especially keen on shipping really good jobs to India and elsewhere. Exactly the sort who has brought ruin down upon our heads in the name of a short-term obsession with boosting the value of her stock options. For that reason alone I would never vote for her if given the chance.Now, as for abortion (again!), there still are a significant number of people like me who are socially conservative, oppose abortion under some circumstances (late term, or when done to select gender) but not others (when performed close to the moment of conception, in cases of rape, or for health reasons). We do not favor sending the Fist of Federal Power into the wombs of women in search of fetuses to protect. We do not believe that there exists at the very moment of conception life that is as worthy of protection as that of say, a politician or a pope or a Goldman Sachs CEO or a Hollywood producer or farmer or an illegal alien. And I suspect that most of Americans, or at least a plurality, are like me in that respect, in that we favor abortion rights under some circumstances (more than enough to anger some religious groups) but not others (thereby placing us in opposition to the pro-abortion rights lobby). What a pity Roe was decided as it was. Had this been left a state issue, then the voters of the 50 states would long since have settled the issue at the ballot box, probably keeping things pretty much as they are for most women most of the time, and denying extremists at both ends of the issue a platform from which to influence national politics.

  • WmarkW

    I question (what appear to me to be) a couple of the unspoken premises of the article. One is that Palin and Fiorina mean what they say. The other is that the terms on which we secularists approach the abortion issue is the same as the way the religionists do.Palin and Fiorina, like most high-level politicians, are manipulative individuals with manufactured public images. As is, for example, Barack Obama, a man with not a drop of blood that suffered slavery or segregationism, and has spent his whole life cultivating a public image as suffering the trials and challenges of being a black man in America. Hogwash. He’s spent his whole adult life in an America that does everything possible to encourage talented blacks to become leaders and examples for others.As to the abortion issue, as secularists we frame it as about the right to make fertility decisions. To the religionists, I suspect the line of reasoning is more like: the question of fetal personhood is such a big one that God must have an opinion, and that opinion would be the same for a married couple that wants a child and single woman who doesn’t. Since it’s obvious that the fetus is a person in the first case, it must be in the second, also. Of course, to those of us who don’t believe in a God that has opinions, this reasoning falls apart.And, as many below have pointed out, there’s a big difference between sincerely religiously motivated grass-roots antiabortionists and anti-abortion politicians, in that the former support expansive safety nets for poor mothers and are generally pro-life on the death penalty as well.Voters who are against abortion are one of the groups that conservatism has targeted because they can be persuaded to vote against their economic interests. Until the 60s, Southern bigots were partisan Democrats; today, they vote for the party of big business. Anti-abortion is how the Republican party targets Hispanics without raising their wages or giving them health care.

  • suenjim

    You know it’s a natural thing to be attracted to women who don’t believe in murder! That’s not a strange thing. Abortion is such an unusual word. It doesn’t speak of murder, of taken another’s life. It only speaks of stopping a “process”. That the “process” is the development of a living human being, an innocent creature that can’t protect itself and is fully dependent on its mother is just shoveled off with the clean and convenient term “abortion”. “I just chose to change things and go along a different path. I just “aborted” the plan that was developing.” That the new path involved ending another’s life is never spoken of, but have no doubt, atheist or not, that person and those who facilitated the abortion will most indeed answer one day to a higher power, that I call God, for taking that life. It’ll be a little too late then to plead, “I thought it was just an abortion…a change in plans.

  • jiji1

    These woman are actually pro-choice: pro-choice for that unborn baby.

  • WmarkW

    a shame Jacoby’s mom wasn’t as big an abortion supporter as her daughter is…Posted by: silencedogoodreturnsNo; my mother was pro-choice and chose to have three kids.

  • drjcarlucci

    Why can’t the Left call it “anti-abortion” rather than “anti-choice”?The term is more accurate since, obviously, conservative women aren’t against school choice, etc.Probably the same reason the Left never uses the term “pro-abortion rights”, using the sugar coated term “pro-chopice” instead.Their choice of terms betrays a distaste for “abortion”, teh procedure and the term.

  • PSolus

    “Abortions kill babies.”Again, that is your belief, not reality. No one else is required to buy into your superstitious beliefs.”There’s no debate here.”Then why are you debating it?”Pregnant woman + abortion = dead baby.”Again, that is your belief, not reality.”And if abortion is murder and murder is wrong only one conclusion can be reached.”Abortion is not murder.”This is a very simple equation that too many people refuse to acknowledge because they believe it takes away a woman’s rights.”That is your belief, not reality.”Well, the second that pregnancy test turns positive it is no longer only about the woman because the baby has rights too.”At the time of a pregnancy test, there is no baby; only the pregnant woman and a zygote, embryo, or fetus. Only the pregnant woman is capable of making an informed decision.

  • PSolus

    “Abortion is not an issue addressed by the Constitution and it should have been resolved by the normal process of representative government.”The SCOTUS is part of our representative government, as outlined in the Constitution.”Perhaps Jacoby would prefer to living under royalty since she denigrates the choices of voters and favors decisions of black robed kings.”The Supreme Court justices are not royalty or kings; they are simply legal justices. You seem to be very confused about how the U.S. government works.

  • WmarkW

    The Supreme Court roiled the political process tremendously with the Roe decision and the eddy currents continue today. Abortion is not an issue addressed by the Constitution and it should have been resolved by the normal process of representative government.The Constitution doesn’t address reproductivity or fertility anywhere. The Tenth Amendment states that omission from the Constitution doesn’t not imply governmental jurisdiction, and the Fourteenth makes Constitutional protections binding on states. Ergo, a state can’t, for example, pass a law limiting a couple to having two children because it would violate our culture’s sense of a basic human right.I agree that Roe is convoluted and has disrupted the democratic process; but I think it was the best that could be done to recognize sensible distinctions. A lot of abortion debate comes to saying there are only two mileposts in pregnancy — conception and birth. And if it’s wrong to murder a child post-birth, then it’s wrong to abort one day before, and if that’s wrong then it’s wrong two days before, etc, etc, until conception.Almost all abortions occur in the first trimester when the woman discovers she’s pregnant and immediately decides not to continue it. The trimester system recognizes that in a way that Religious Right position does not.

  • rcc_2000

    What is this, the 5 year old’s debating tactic? You’re just going to negate everything I say and that’s the extent of your argument? Are you going to start saying “Yeah-huh!” and “Is too!” next?—What a hypocrite! You start with a condemnation of poor debating and logic and then jump right into the irrational logic pool.You state that “Abortions kill babies” by definition a baby is an child from birth to one year. What you fail to realize from your home school education (an assumption just hoping your parents did not get ripped off or pay useless taxes) is that before birth it would be an embryo or fetus. Also, that in the first 5 weeks after conception that the embryo has gills and is indistinguishable from many other animals including some you have at dinner so unless you are a vegetarian you are a hypocrite. Before you debate learn the meaning of the words. By saying Abortion kills babies you are using a semantic trick that is incorrect and as infantile as those you accuse of being 5 year olds.-

  • falltillfly

    “Also, that in the first 5 weeks after conception that the embryo has gills and is indistinguishable from many other animals including some you have at dinner so unless you are a vegetarian you are a hypocrite.”

  • theduck6

    I one more deluded liberal tries to make a connection between the Tea Party and corporate America I may spit my coffee all over the screen here. As a participant I know first hand how grass roots the movement really is. I wouldn’t be surprised if some might want to attach their logos to the movement but I defy anyone to make that connection right now.The arguments here are specious but it really boils down to when you think life begins or fetal viability is evident to you personally. Unless you’re Peter Singer or a like minded moron and think abortion should be legal up to 24 weeks post-partem. In the interest of accuracy he did back away from the 24 weeks as it was too “arbitrary”. Seriously?

  • member8

    If you were in an accident and woke up in the hospital connected by tubes and wires to another person, and were told that you were keeping that person alive, that if you disconnected yourself from that other person, that other person would die…should the government be able to force you to remain hooked up to that other person, or do you have the right to say no? Should it be a crime to disconnect yourself from that other person?

  • arancia12

    I could not agree more that these women are beneficiaries of a woman’s right to choose. They are shameless.Mrs. Fiorina might think differently if she a woman who had died because she was denied an abortion and Mrs. Palin conveniently forgets she had a choice. They are also women of means. Mrs. Palin’s daughter didn’t have to quit high school to care for her child. Mrs. Palin didn’t have to quit her job as governor to care for her disabled son. The sheer hypocrisy of these people who decry big government unless it is some other woman’s womb or your job on the gulf at risk is simply breathtaking.

  • BuffaloGal78

    oryssman said:—Then there’s the biological mother. I don’t think anyone who talks about the presumed lifelong grief and depression of the woman who chooses to abort would be half as sympathetic to the woman who chooses to give birth and then place the child for adoption. Anti-choicers love to say it’s other people who force a woman to abort, but no one talks about the women who are still, to this day, told “you’re not in a position to raise this child, you should go through with the pregnancy but then surrender the child for adoption.” Imagine, if you will, spending almost a year of your life nurturing someone else, and then just as you find out the result of all your efforts, it’s taken away from you.No, no, no. Adoption is never, ever the easy solution to whether or not to have an abortion. They are both viable choices, as is choosing to give birth and raise a child. But none of them should ever be seen as being the way to fix or prevent the others.

  • Freethotlib

    The Supreme Court decided the issue BECAUSE Congress lacked the courage to take RESPONSIBILITY ofr making a decision. They are elected folk and they like their jobs.When physicians lie to their patients — in the interest of pro life beliefs — they are in effect betraying their patient. Where does that stop? If you have a cancer and the doctor happens to be studying growth of that form of cancer would it be acceptable for him to not tell you about the cancer so he could study its growth? I guess it would be in the warped world of the pro lifers. Sarah and Carly and the rest are politicians and therefore they are phonies. Sarah toted her Downs kid around on her hip as an election PROP and then she had the gall to complain that the press talked about her USE of her kids as election props. That is called hypocrisy!!

  • PSolus

    “The Supreme Court decided the issue BECAUSE Congress lacked the courage to take RESPONSIBILITY ofr making a decision. They are elected folk and they like their jobs.”The Supreme Court decided the issue because the case was brought before them; their job is to try the judicial cases that are brought before them.The Congress does not have the jurisdiction to decide judicial cases, irrespective of their lack of courage or how much they like their jobs.

  • buckminsterj

    Falltillfly: But are you a vegetarian? (It’s an important question and you did not answer). Do you believe all life is equal, whether bacterium or conifer or chicken or dolphin or human? If not, what specific qualities elevate one form of life over another? And Member8: You should probably look up the definition of “person.”

  • suenjim

    So the developing life in the womb is called and “embryo” or “fetus”. Maybe those are technically correct text book terms, but they ignore one thing…it’s human life.Oh, that’s nice. That’s so convenient. It’s not really a baby, just an embryo or fetus. Sounds like some bug that one calls an exterminator to take care of. In a way that’s the logic of abortion…it’s not human, just something else. “Embryo” and “Fetus” are such clinical names. They avoid the real fact that it’s life…a living being. Later on that “embryo” or “fetus” becomes an infant. So should we make infanticide legal since we can still technically avoid calling “it” a human being just yet? I mean afterall, an infant doesn’t have much chance of “independent” survival. It still depends on others, primarily its mother for survival.Abortion is murder and all abortion supporters know it. It’s what one might call “An Inconvenient Truth”, but that’s the whole reason for Roe v. Wade…to legally get rid of an inconvenience. Years ago there was a mom in South Carolina who locked her three kids in a car, put the car in gear, slammed the door, let the car run into a lake and drowned the kids. I guess we could say she just resorted to a form of “abortion” to rid herself of those inconvenient kids? It seems they were in the way of a new love in her life. The fact that they were helpless and couldn’t get out of the car and live without their mother’s help somewhat parallels the baby not being able to get out of the womb and live without the mothers help. In the latter case the convenient lake took care of an inconvenient problem. In the other case a convenient abortionist takes care of the inconvenient problem.Do you wonder why child abuse and murder are on the rise in our society? Could it be that, first, babies in the womb and now, second, children have become just throw away objects in the twisted logic of this our modern and hip society?

  • password11

    What the heck happen to Carly Fiorina? After she drove HP into the ground it seems she did a make over and had a lot of work done. All that she needs now are some MC HAMMER glasses like her buddy Sara Palin.

  • edbyronadams

    “I agree that Roe is convoluted and has disrupted the democratic process; but I think it was the best that could be done to recognize sensible distinctions.”The best that could be done is for the Supremes to refuse to hear the case and let the democratic process resolve the issue. Stating that the trimester distinction is sensible is a political argument and one that should have been made in the legislative venue, not the courtroom. In my own state, the liberalization of abortion laws was already underway and signed by Ronald Reagan and a second wave for further liberalization was nascent when the Court prematurely ended it all.However, the Supreme Court is subject to the political process as well, even at a distance and that is why any politician’s stance on abortion, regardless of gender, is a legitimate issue, whether Susan Jacoby approves or not.

  • ptvoice

    Why do atheists need to be so mean? If Carly Fiorina holds her world view because of the experiences of her own upbringing how is she different than “women of choice” except that she chooses to value the unborn baby as a human? Not anti-choice just a different choice. It never ceases to amaze me how atheists assume that the moral positions they hold are based on reason as opposed to people who happen to believe in God or some higher power. People of faith according to atheistic lore, dogma actually, are just goofball fanatics who don’t use reason or logic. According to the atheistic dogma I believe in God therefore I am not logical. What do I say to that? That is not logical.

  • DickeyFuller

    ~I agree that, even 10 years ago, Ms. Fiorina would have been a moderate Republican — in the mold of Christine Todd Whitman. In my opinion, Fiorina has latched on to these positions merely to cement her support from Ms. Palin and her crowd.Ms. Fiorina is a very smart woman who would not have given the Tea Party the time of day before the 2008 election. Her actions are transparent. disingenuous, and, regretfully, craven. It’s unfortunate that she lacks the courage to just be herself and, instead, chose to dumb-down her image to appeal to the less educated and more irrational members of our society.~

  • The-Historian

    beachgolfer869 Posted @ June 15, 2010 8:05 PMJason75 Posted @ June 15, 2010 6:29 PMPro-abortion crowd? I have yet to meet a woman who Says “ Abortion is my preferred method of birth control”. 60% of abortions are obtained by women who are already mothers, why is that happening jason75?

  • shewholives

    Against abortion? Don’t have one.

  • mhalligan83

    i would be prolife if mothers were guaranteed that the child they gave birth to would have a good quality of life, that their basic needs would be met, have the resources never to go hungry or without utilities, or without a home or medical attention and the promise of a college education if they wanted. birth is not the end of the road, it’s many years of support and growth and financial assistance. I think good christians wouldn’t mind assisting contributing to those kids lives. Sarah would help.

  • EdSantaFe

    Bottom line is that pro-life or pro-choice should be a private decision and not a political issue. These women who jump in and try to tell all other women what to do, under the cloak of faux-feminism, are fools. Palin is far too shallow to have “deep thoughts” about anything. It’s all a political game for her.

  • seter16

    you know I understand how men can do this…but I just can’t wrap the fact that WOMEN are trying to take women rights away….scary….wish I could just go to Canada where it isn’t a vote or a “culture war” for women and gays to be an equal citizen.

  • ashotinthedark

    Do you wonder why child abuse and murder are on the rise in our society? Could it be that, first, babies in the womb and now, second, children have become just throw away objects in the twisted logic of this our modern and hip society?

  • hinterlight

    Sara Palin and all right wing fem-bots must die

  • herro

    Susan, It’s clear that you want to make your morality the law of the land too. It’s called democracy, silly, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Dial it down a notch or two.

  • InTheMiddle

    This makes me ill.Anti-choice? We aren’t talking about a car, a career, or a house — those are choices. We are talking about a human life. My wife was born before abortion was legal. She was put up for adoption. Who knows what “choice” the mother might have been talked into if she could have had the option of killing my wife rather than giving birth to her.

  • tma_sierrahills

    I’m not anti-choice, but you know when someone is called a “darling,” all objectivity has gone out the window. By the way, I would like to know what Palin’s real views are on immigration, but I can’t afford a private detective.

  • mhoust

    The severity of cognitive dissonance of women like Fiorina and Palin and government is absolutely flabbergasting. They complain about taxes to help the poor; but utterly fail to understand that being forced to have an unwanted child severely reduces the woman’s chances of ever getting OUT of being poor, and contributes those children to the poor pool themselves. Which yet again proves that Carly Fiorina and Sarah Palin are totally incapable of thinking cogently and logically. Small wonder HP had to fire Fiorina for gross mismanagement, and Palin had to quit being Alaska’s governor due to her sheer incompetence.It’s true, what’s really sad is these two got where they are today due to the sacrifices of earlier generations of the feminist’s/women’s movement. And the right to a legal abortion was a major component of that movement.What I’d really like to do is force Fiorina and Palin to watch a week-long video of the agonizing deaths women suffered prior to being able to get legal abortions; followed by a week-long video of the delivery of physically deformed fetuses that should have been aborted. Maybe, just maybe, they might have a bit more sympathy for women who have to live on 15 to 25,000 dollars a year and can’t afford (fiscally or mentally) to have a child, healthy or otherwise.

  • letswin

    So when does a woman take responsibility, instead of always wrapping themselves up in choice.I make a choice to have sexual relationsi make a choice not to take any precautionsI make a choice to end a life.How about responsibility for the first two and then you don’t have the consequence of the third.Really tired of people saying, choice, choice, choice until they don’t have to take any responsibility.We’re talking about life here.

  • Eric12345

    Wow….Susan seems pretty mad here. Kinda like tea party, lashing out at anything that moves mad. How dare these women be against abortion! The nerve!For years pro-abortion rights women have told pro-life men that they can’t express their opinions about this issue because it’s a woman’s issue, implying that women have some additional moral authority on this issue that men don’t have. But now that a pro-life man (Ponnuru) holds up pro-life women endowing them with some additional moral authority, Susan gets all huffy about it and questions why they should have this additional moral authority. Sorry Susan…pro-abortion rights women have been arguing that women have special moral authority on this issue all along.Oh, and Ramesh Ponnuru is a man.

  • JaneDoe4

    Good for you, Susan. Well written and spells out EXACTLY what these so called “female moral leaders” like Palin and Fiorino are pretending to be. They are really just as repressive and mean and anti-woman as their male counterparts.Sounds like Fiorino has an axe to grind because she couldn’t bear children and now she wants to punish those who choose for whatever reason to decide on abortion [which is their right].

  • gimpi

    I have to admit, I find the whole Both she and I are firmly in the ‘pro-choice’ camp. Her difficulties and my sympathies had no affect on this belief. Choice means just that. Interfering in another person’s life, to the point of compelling them to risk their lives and health to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth is a huge act of governmental control. We both feel that the pro-life arguments (so far) don’t justify that kind of governmental dominance.Ms. Fiorina and Ms Palin certainly have the right to their opinions. But their choices are just that, choices. That’s what this argument is all about, the right to make choices regarding our own lives. I just don’t see how the small-government crowd can justify the kind of governmental control serious anti-abortion and anti-birth control laws would demand.

  • Eric12345

    MHALLIGAN83 – You seem to think that women have abortions because they worry their children won’t have a good enough quality of life. Do you really think concerns about the child’s quality of life is the main issue is most abortions?

  • forgetthis

    I couldn’t finish this article. It just seemed like a long, angry ranting about…something. The author is apparently nauseated over someone else’s viewpoint on an issue. Give her a dramamine.

  • danminter

    The only thing that is pathetic is how people like this columnist place no value on human life, which is the very reason our society is breaking down before our eyes. Abortion is not about politics, it’s not an issue, it’s not about right vs. left, and it’s not a choice—-it is murder—period. A life is destroyed in the name of selfishness, and that’s all there is to it. The good thing is that the majority of America is beginning to see the truth. The whole idea of abortion is about eugenics (eliminate the minorities—blacks, hispanics, Jews, and Catholics, etc.)…that is the agenda of Planned Parenthood and has been from it’s very beginning with Margaret Sanger and her Nazi sympathizers having brainwashed all of you over the last 60 yrs into believing that it’s OK to kill another human being. Funny that so many will defend a dog or a cat from being butchered (which I completely agree with BTW), but have no sympathy or empathy for a baby that has been dismembered, or even the abortion worker who is traumitized by having to clean up the mess after the procedure has been performed, or the mother who regrets her decision and has no one to turn to for help and counseling—except those crazy “right wingers” you all keep mentioning. So, go ahead keep aborting your babies and see where it gets you—alone in your 70s and 80s with no one to visit you or care for you, and not enough people to pay into our social security system to make sure you get your govt checks every month…and then comes the real trouble—the afterlife…oh, sorry, I forgot you checked your religion at the door of the abortion clinic and in the voting booth…yeah good luck with that!

  • RevolutionNow

    You can’t compare abortion (not women’s rights) with any economical policy. To do so shows how morally bankrupt you really are. What’s nauseating is your disgust of good women. 40 Million innocent babies have been butchered in this country. I consider you left wing women who are fine with this monstrous figure, soul-less. But, since you are corrupt in your soul, this isn’t surprising. Since you are a fool who doesn’t believe in God, then any argument for self indulgence and self-fulfilling decisions should be embraced by your kind. Man did not invent morality. God did. If you are a Darwinian Atheist, then survival of the fittest should be your motto correct? So if I am more fit to live than you are, in my mind, I have every right to remove you. Correct? If a baby, who is genetically, it’s own person can be murdered by it’s mother, than why can’t an adult if considered useless by another? Your arguments are as weak as your faith.

  • jromaniello

    Thank you, Susan. This was a wonderful peace, and refreshing since it was one of your less scathing/snarky ones.That said, I couldn’t agree more. It amusing, ironic, and really pathetic that these women, whom were furnished with the opportunities the enjoy now through feminism, denounce the very movement that allows them to be so verbose today. Ms. Palin forgets that she *chose* to have Trigg and that she twice, contemplated terminating the pregnancy. I do not condemn her for that. Frankly, I don’t blame her; she was 44 years old, currently raising 4 children, in the middle of a huge political career, and then she learns it’s a Downs baby. It’s only human that she would contemplate abortion. But she chose to have Trigg and I respect that she feels that was the correct choice for her. Ms. Fiorina also uses her personal worldview as well. I’m glad your husband’s mother chose to have him, and am glad that she felt that she made the right choice. I’m sorry that she cannot have children, but that doesn’t mean that women should be denied to make this very intimate and often agonizing choice on the own. Besides, how many children has she chosen to adopt? People like Ms. Palin and Ms. Fiorina looooooove to just say, “place the child up for adoption”. They fail to realize how complex the adoption process really is. The biological mother has final say in whether or not a couple make take her child. They tend to choose adopting family off of a potential couples financial security, ethnicity, etc. That can make it difficult to place babies in loving homes. Also, the chance that the biological parent(s) will change their mind constantly looms over the head of adoopting couples, and that brings emotional torment (for both the child and the adopters) unto itself. The adopting process can be expensive, should there be a change of heart on the mother’s part. Lawyers, court battles…. you get the picture. Then you have the millions of older children that no one wants (most want babies) that are floating in the foster care system, with no real anchor or sense of security. It appears we have plenty of available children up for adoption. My point? Saying ‘just adopt’ is not the simple solution. All choices are viable: abortion, adoption, keeping the child, but frankly, it’s none of our business. People like Ms. Palin, Ms. Bachmann, Ms. Fiorina, et. al. need to butt out.

  • ttj1

    Typical venemous hack job from Susan Jacoby. There was nothing “nausea-inducing” or “comical” about Fiorina’s quote and insinuations about her alleged incompetence are merely speculative, and, moreover, irrelevant. By the same token we could point out that the board of HP never would have even considered making Susan Jacoby its CEO. What does Jacoby know about competence?The alleged multitude Jacoby cites of “pro-choice feminist moms” who abort children are clearly unwilling mothers who should know better than to have gotten pregnant. If they are adult enough to make the choice of pregnancy, they are adult enough to assume full responsibility for the lives of the children they generate. Ditto for fathers. What Jacoby really advocates is abdication of individual responsibility.

  • jromaniello

    “Susan, It’s clear that you want to make your morality the law of the land too. It’s called democracy, silly, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Dial it down a notch or two.”************No. No one forces anyone to terminate a pregnancy. Don’t believe in abortion? Don’t have one.

  • villarrj

    To RCC_2000 @ June 16, 2010 7:42 AM: I’d be happy to explore the first question you present (the second is a bit off-topic).First, I’m not sure what the point is of comparing the physical similarities of embryos of different species. It seems you’re suggesting that, because a higher being at a particular stage in life just so happens to look similar to a lesser being at the same stage, we ought to view the former as an expendable inconvenience. But you’ll be hard-pressed to persuade many conscientious parents that the accidental physical qualities of their developing children (at any stage) are a reason to shut them out of their hearts, as though those tiny beings were nothing more than detestable parasites.Further, if “viability” is the standard by which we are to set our moral and emotional attitudes, then it seems that as a matter of consistency we ought to adopt similar societal dispositions that view other human beings whose viability is questionable, including the very old and the comatose. Shouldn’t we? Of course, my personal judgment is that there is something special about the qualities of tenderness, fondness, and other affections toward the most vulnerable members of society that are worth preserving.As to your comment about masturbation, I respectfully but forcefully reject the comparison to the “potential for life” that is evident in a developing child. My point here is nuanced but not trivial. Sperm, separated from the act of fertilization, will never have the potential to develop spontaneously into an embryo. Now we can have a conversation about the morality of masturbation or how it might judged according to natural teleology, but I don’t see the similarity between a real developing child and an isolated gamete.

  • poppysue85

    No one is “for” abortion. In a perfect world without rape and incest and prejudice and economic stability for all, there would be relatively no reason for abortion. The women who are anti-abortion, for the large part, have never walked in the desperate and or victimized shoes of many of the women who have sought abortion. Women who have abortions don’t walk away “free”- they have to live with the consequences of their act and the act is never easy, never lightly taken. A woman who has been raped, who has been victimized, they tell her to carry the pregnancy for 9 months and then give it up for adoption. Let them do it first and then tell us how they dealt with it. People who have never had to deal with the experiences of many of the women who seek abortion have no right to have opinion and or right of behavioral control over those who have had these experiences. And as Christians they show no charity.

  • Bodoc

    Editor, The Record: America, welcome the new “feminists”.They join anti-feminist fundamentalists in not only limiting women’s freedoms, but justify it by finding the plight of “the born” to be far less compelling than the plight of the “unborn”. That’s because those without umbilical cords require a level of commitment, financing and care beyond a stirring debate on when their lives began. Boil off these “pro-life feminist” brew of disingenuous moralizing and intellectual sophistry and what America’s poor children are left with is the real human pay-off of the “pro-life” philosophy: adults who just “LOVE ‘EM AND LEAVE ‘EM.”

  • lildg54

    Bottom line whatever a woman does with her body is her business no one else’s, and the fact that the two failures that are speaking out against, one was fired and one quit simply makes the case for choice all THE MORE APPARENT

  • mhr614

    I take it that Ms Jacoby would not vote for a woman who believes it wrong to kill unborn children. That is her right. But she does not have the right to have her murderous views remain law if the majority of the people disagree with her. As usual Jacoby exhibits one the hallmarks of he liberal/prgressive left- a totalitarian mindset.

  • chopin224

    What if Tebow’s mother had an abortion? What if Hitler’s mother did?

  • mandrake

    What needs to happen is a longer more involved conversation about a topic that pro-lifers want to portray as a black and white issue. By letting them get away with talking points and glib throwaway experiential stories, it allows them to avoid the real meaning of feminism and the pro-choice victory for women. Do these pro-life women also oppose the Supreme Court decision in Griswold vs. Connecticut that decided that the government has no business in people’s business in using birth control? Do they oppose the idea that individual Americans have a right to privacy that protects them from government intrusion? Because all of these were and are the basis for a Constitutional basis in the right to reproductive choice and abortions. Make these idiots come out and decide if they will side with the majority of Americans who feel that the government has no role in people’s sex lives or the crazy radical right who thinks that the government SHOULD get involved in these things they dislike. Every journalist needs to get them on record about these issues since they are central to the way we Americans live and our rights as Americans.

  • fasm7700

    The Freedom that we Americans espouse is the right to do anything within the framework of our laws. If current statutes allow women the right to choose between bringing a baby to full term or aborting it no amount of pontification and self righteousness can deny women that right. Every neo-politician says they want to get elected to change things in Washington. If the President does not have absolute power how is any other elected representative going to shake up Washington singlehandedly?

  • muawiyah

    No doubt it’s something in the genes that makes human beings different from the “prochoice” crowd ~ most likely they’re a different species entirely.Still, they continue to bellow out the word “hypocrisy” upon the discovery that someone else might disagree with one of their Liberal nostrums or superstitious behaviors.They end up being of a kind with the Moslems who point to their Koran where it says “KILL THE HYPOCRITES”, never mind failing to understand that 99.99999% of hypocrisy is only in the mind of the observer.Interestingly enough Ms. Jacoby writes her piece as if she’s a species apart from ordinary humans and she accuses them of hypocrisy for disagreeing with her.Don’t you people have anything new you can say?

  • chopin224

    Let’s hear more from the right to lifers for the death penalty. I can not understand this massive contradiction. Man will not play God until he does play God.

  • alisongkc1

    Well said Susan.I am one of those women who also benefited from the Women’s Movement – and from all of the other horizon expanding opportunities provided by its pioneering members. I have a career, a husband (who very much wanted children), and yet knew from an early age that I did not want to bear or raise children. I could see how hard it was on my mother to have both a career and two children while married to a man who thought that everything associated with children and home was the absolute responsibility of the WOMAN. My Dad was a great guy, don’t get me wrong, but his worldview was stuck in the era he grew up in, and he was not willing to adapt or evolve. I thought then, and I think now, that the most important job most of us will ever do is to raise good kids. I didn’t think I could do that and have a career. I know now that that is true for me. And thankfully, I had a choice. I have never had to exercise that choice in the negative through abortion, but I would have in a heartbeat. And while I have been successful (and diligent I might add) in preventing conception, I don’t hold the rest of the world to my diligent standards.As for Carly Fiorina using her lack of fertility as a argument for restricting abortion, well, that should work just fine for those on the religious right. They’ll take any argument, no matter how ridiculous, to support their position. After all, logic – and by extension intelligence – is not required by their candidates. That is, if Sarah Palin is any indicator of who they think should run our country.

  • zachgarber

    Hey “Spirited Atheist” who is “looking for a new age of reason”: You refer to Ramesh Ponnuru as “she.” Um, he’s a he. My “new age of reason” desires include wishing that a commentator with a big soap box and self-proclaimed reasoning skills gets to know whom she is criticizing; like the sex of their target. God forgives you — whether you like it or not.

  • ashotinthedark

    villarrj | June 16, 2010 10:04 AMWe do have different rules for the comatose and those near death. Like abortions, there is a balancing act that occurs. I just find it incredibly convenient that the pro-lifers define life to begin at the exact moment that provides them the strongest argument for banning abortions entirely. If it’s before the egg is fertilized then the government can control all sorts of sexual activity. If it’s a week or even a month after fertilization than there is decent window during which abortions can occur.I will acknowledge that there are some scientific arguments to be made for saying life begins at the moment of fertilization, but it’s an awfully amazing coincidence.

  • iamerican

    As if all life isn’t of G-d, these female minions of the Babylonian cult of male prostitutes which relocated to Vatican Hill after being expelled from Jerusalem by King Jehosophat, want Since antiquity popery enforced local “lord’s” rights to rape virgin brides-to-be before their wedding nights, to assault husband and wife, forbidding abortion to reward the rape: to force the parenting of the rapist’s offspring as their own.Rome again wants in Our Country what the slums and brothels of Latin America, the Philippines and Roman Catholic Europe reflect: injustice, perversion, rape, oppression and dehumanization; and above all subjugation of woman. This is how the “engine for enslaving mankind,” as Our Founder called it, “The Roman Anti-Christ” seeks to fulfill its sick motto America must take a “bead” on this Earthy Evil as the tory threat our ancestors knew…and deal with it the same way they did.The United States is G-d’s Country, not the Anti-Christ’s. Truth and Justice must rule, the sovereign People pursuing Righteousness: Rome’s agents must be identified (the 9/11-committing, draft-dodging closet-queen George W. Bush entertained his homosexual lover James Guckert/Jeff Gannon, signed into the logbook at the WH’s social entrance 202 times in a two-year period…and only the Roman Catholics on the SCOTUS illegally voted in ‘Bush v. Gore’ to make him president).Could G-d reveal this abomination for every eye to see, any more clearly? Palin and Fiorina are but two more examples. Disregard Truth at your peril: The curse comes not without cause.Those who follow Rome’s insistence that victims of rape and incest must be forced to bear – to reward the criminal – must be excluded from political consideration for their sectarian faction, with generations of proof against the People, must be known for the traitors, panders, perverts, and scum they are. They are not worthy of America.Seal the border. Rome out of America, now!

  • Eric12345

    MANDRAKE – Please take some time to talk to someone who holds a pro-life position. There’s a very easy answer to your questions. No, the government has no business in my or your sex life. But after the initial action of procreation, this issue has nothing to do with our sex lives. It has to do with the life of a third party. If you don’t think it’s a life, that’s fine. But there’s no inconsistency in saying that the government shouldn’t prevent the use of contraception while at the same time it should ban abortion.As for privacy, of course pro-lifers think there’s such a thing as personal privacy from government. But again, if you view an embryo or fetus as a human life, than protecting a life trumps privacy concerns. Just as a policeman can enter your home if he suspects violence is being inflicted upon someone.These questions you pose aren’t half as difficult as you think they are.

  • rmorris391

    Let’s call this kind of politics CYNICAL. Carly Fiorina is not fighting for anything on abortion. She is appealing to some who believe abortion is wrong, even though it is a protected right. Carly is practicing a political calculus, so that she can attract a few votes. The challenge for Carly in California is to find a way to appeal to Latinos on immigration issues. No one can get elected on the abortion issue. Just look at the flap over Libertarians talking about over turning Civil Rights. It is very difficult for a candidate to talk about removing rights that are settled in law.

  • zachgarber

    Hi CHOPIN224:I agree that being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty seems to have some problems on its face. If you’re against taking a life, be against it always, would be the reasoning. However, with capital punishment, the perpetrator has been told that if you murder someone, the penalty could be that you are executed by the state, so please, try avoiding murdering someone. With abortion, the life or potential life being killed (fetus, baby, what have you for the sake of this argument) really has no ability to avoid the consequences. So there is a difference: the one person is being killed for his terrible act –murder–, the other is being killed for nothing of the sort (again potential life, certainly); perhaps the health or life of the mother, or rape, or, the real cor eof the problem most people have with abortion, out of convenience. So there is a difference I think.The Catholic Church is consistent: no death penalty, no abortion. But deapending on how one interprets the commandment (thou shalt not “murder” or “kill”) you can reason around it I guess, maybe. Probably a bad thing to play around with, spiritually speaking.

  • chriskenth

    The feminist movement gave women the right to choose, it now has to live with the fact that some women will choose not to agree with it. Jacoby claims that Fiorina and Palin have betrayed feminisim because they refuse to fight the same battles that there mothers did. How is that any different from the WWII generation forcing the Baby Boomers to submit to the draft and fight wars overseas just because that’s what they had to do?

  • Eric12345

    Saying “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one” makes as much sense as saying “If you don’t like wives being beaten, don’t beat your wife.”

  • PSolus

    Eric12345,”But again, if you view an embryo or fetus as a human life, than protecting a life trumps privacy concerns. Just as a policeman can enter your home if he suspects violence is being inflicted upon someone.”Are you in favor of the government forcing all menstruating girls and women to undergo fertility tests every 28 days or so, so that it can protect the “potential life” that each may be carrying?Do you also favor the government interning all pregnant girls and women against their wills to protect the “life” that each is carrying?

  • buckminsterj

    The anti-choicers on this thread continue to howl about killing “babies” and “unborn children.”The validity of that complaint hinges on demonstrating that zygotes, embryos and fetuses are, in fact, babies or children. Show me how the definitions of those terms, lexical or associative, overlap. What specific characteristics define human life and elevate it above other forms (many of which we routinely kill)? Which of those characteristics are shared by zygotes et al.? Until you can provide credible answers in support of your position, lay off the “baby killing” nonsense. Merely believing that human life begins at conception is not sufficient for serious moral and legal debate.

  • porcelainproductions

    These woman and thier followers should have been aborted. Its not to late, is it?

  • jamesgoldman01

    ***Let’s hear more from the right to lifers for the death penalty. I can not understand this massive contradiction.***Are you really comparing an innocent, unborn child with a convicted murderer?That’s probably the first step to understanding how this isn’t a contradiction.Now, if you’re suggesting that a series of trials should be held to determine if an unborn child can be put to death as a just penalty, perhaps there’s some common ground.

  • lildg54

    BTW what’s with Fiornia hairdo is she trying to look ugly

  • John1263

    Simple examples of why we need choice. And why liberty loving real Americans don’t want Big overnment making such life altering decisions for us:We had friends who found more than 4 months into their first pregnancy that the fetus had not “split” and was developing with what is essentially cyclopism. One hemishpere for the brain etc. Almost always results in still born if the fetus does not die in utero and kill the mother too. Under the anti-choice people both would be dead, instead of that couple now having two healthy children.If you have ever had children you know that standard procedure is to have prenatal scanning to determine the wellbeing of the fetus. This is not done for amusment or for those bizarre jelly bean with sticks photos, it is to determine whether there are serious defects so you can make an informed choice about whether to continue the pregnancy. Like it or not, not everyone desires to raise a seriously disabled child, and not everyone thinks the added difficulties of doing that if the people already have other children is something that is a good idea. Not your choice. THEIR choice. You don’t have the responsibility, so you don’t get a say. Period.

  • John1263

    Fiorini is a dope, she nearly bankrupted the venerated computer behemoth HP, an was fired for it.however, her hair is because she is a cancer survivor. Commenting on her hair is as irrelevant as her commenting on Boxer’s unless you are bringing up the relevance of having someone healthy in office. Voting for her would be a foolish thing to do because she is unqualified and espouses dangerous unAmerican ideas, not because of her hair.

  • agapn9

    Susan – once again you proved that the onlyAbortion is a national security issue – our low birth rate has destabilized the country and promoted immigration of terrorist and anti-american as well as anti-freedom of religion muslims and an overwhelming flood of poor immigrants from central america. Why? Immigration 101 – low birth rate high standard of living – high birth rate low standard of living – tends to equalize (see the Roman Empire and the Germans for further reading)So if you are an atheist you don’t want to be forced to pray 7 times a day to Mecca and memorize the Quran now do you. But if we continue to have a low birth rate we need only look at England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden to see what happens.So Susan if you get want you want you lose your freedom and are force to become a monotheist if you lose some of your freedom you get to continue to be an obnxious atheist – your choice.

  • jaysit

    Fiorina became an anti-abortion warrior only after she decided to seek the Republican nomination for Senator. Prior to that the woman was always pro-choice, which leads me to believe that she will say and do just about anything for a vote. Now watch her bolt back to the center. I bet her days of being filmed with Sarah Palin are over.

  • trippin

    Funny how an ideology that so frivolously bandies about the word “freedom” so should advocate the control of women’s reproductive organs from Washington.Evidently to them, “freedom” isn’t freedom for you and me. It’s freedom for the people who have money to take advantage of people who don’t, and freedom to privatize the profits and socialize the losses.

  • JoeT1

    Even Dr. Laura agrees that the pro life crowd should quite whining about Roe and actually do something to reduce abortion. Like raise daughters with enough self-esteem not to get pregnant. Raise sons who don’t think it’s cool to find a girl with low self esteem who will have sex with them. Insist that schools teach those messages. Demand that pastors create an environment in which pregnant teens won’t be condemned, and in which parishioners won’t shun them. Be parents who won’t disown them. Create social programs that enable girls to have their children and still get educations and jobs. In short, change the equation facing the pregnant teen so that the prospect of having the child isn’t so threatening that abortion is even entertained as an option.and if we created an environment in which it could clearly be said that all abortions were mere selfish whims, then I would consider making having one illegal. not until, as we would then still have a society that would drive some women to back alleys, where they went before Roe, another subject the pro-life crowd does not wish to address.I sometimes think the pro-choice crowd is doing more to reduce the actual number of abortions than the pro-life crowd, which seems content to feel good ranting about Roe (the irrelevance of which they don’t even appreciate – its overturn wouldn’t outlaw abortion). Which makes the pro-choice crowd the real pro-life side

  • roscym1

    Stevenj974: I have several relatives who have had abortions with no post partem depression. Yours are anecdotal comments.

  • Casey1

    These “feminist-conservatives” expose the limits of their intellect as well as the bankruptcy of their political positions just by putting those two words together. There is no such thing as a conservative anti-abortionist. Only idiots who confuse their religionist crappola with their half-baked political beliefs would think so.They believe that the government has a right to stick its nose up my vagina. They believe that their private religious superstitions should be written into law. They believe that a government monitor belongs in our bedrooms. They are ignorant, odious sows, every one of them, riding on the achievements of my generation.

  • motogp46

    Sarah Palin is a retard.

  • Reesh

    It’s a good thing that neither Meg Whitman nor Carly Fiorina are reproducing. The world doesn’t need more genetic deformities, like fat heads and flat heads.

  • schmitt_fam

    What an offensive, bigoted article. Pro-abortion groups hate the idea that some women really are pro-life. The core issue is whether or not the baby is human at conception or at some later date. Is the fetus a child or is the baby a human and if so at what point? If the baby is human then the woman’s choice to abort is murder or at least manslaughter. If the fetus is not human then this is no different than any other medical procedure. These are the facts, make your decision and then live with it but stop attacking people who hold that the child is human at conception.

  • tmullen-GOPgirl

    The real truth is pro-choice isn’t choice at all it is pro-abortion. I love how you label these women as anti-choice. Oh my now what part of choice does this movement give a woman ALL information when it comes to making a choice best suited for her and her baby. We need to make it mandatory that at tax payer funded planned parenthood units that all women are given a sonogram to be able to make an educated choice in this matter, but guess what the truth is you so called choice folks would never want to educate.

  • Eric12345

    PSOLUS – The answer to both your questions is “no”. And they’re ridiculous questions. No one is advocating what you suggest. Moving on…

  • Vikon

    Um, Susan, Ramesh Ponnuru is a MAN. Do you even bother to think or do ANY research before posting an article? How can you be expected to be taken seriously if you cannot even get THAT right?

  • bruce19

    So Susan if you get want you want you lose your freedom and are force to become a monotheist if you lose some of your freedom you get to continue to be an obnxious atheist – your choice.Posted by: agapn9 | June 16, 2010 10:55 AMHuh? This is the most bizarre post! If you don’t want children, you are going to cause the Muslims to take over our country and turn us into a giant Islamic theocracy? Paranoid, anti-intellectual writing is so sexy.

  • GregW1

    Why do people say that abortion should be illegal except for rape and incest? If they claim that it is a life, an innocent life as compared to a death row inmate, then why abort (they would say kill) someone for a crime someone else committed? Is it unfair for the mother? Yes. But wouldn’t it be unfair for the fetus as well? I don’t know.

  • PSolus

    Eric12345,”PSOLUS – The answer to both your questions is “no”. And they’re ridiculous questions. No one is advocating what you suggest. Moving on…”Well, then, I guess that you do not view an embryo or fetus as a human life, and that you think that privacy concerns trump protecting a life.Does that make you pro-choice?

  • NikkiSixx

    Pro-choice, pro-life. Anti-choice, anti-life. That’s not the point. Some of you are tripping over semantics.What the Tea & Republican partiers fail to recognize is that in their attempt to create a Laissez-faire government (meaning Hands Off), they are stepping all over the toes of the individual.Frankly, I don’t care if you or your God approve or disapprove of abortion or gays or anything else for that matter. I don’t want your tentacles seeping into my private life. How can you be a proponent of less government and then support laws and ideals that sh!t all over the individuals privacy?Politicians should stick to the public realm where they belong.

  • buckminsterj

    schmitt_fam: “stop attacking people who hold that the child is human at conception.”We are not attacking people who hold that the child is human at conception. We are attacking people who wish to codify that unsubstantiated belief as law.

  • cristina1999us

    JoeT1I absolutely agree with you and I think your message sumarizes my views on the matter. I am struggling to find a way where I can put my generally conservative values in these two parties that have became dangerously too religious and dogmatic. I identify myself with Republican values except in two issues: abortion and religion. I find quite hypocritical and very inconsistant from the “right” to be against abortion and encourage those who are pregnant and not married to have their babies, but then they shout out loud that funds should be cut from programs to help those girls. Do they really believe everybody makes decisions on rational behavior? That accidents don’t happen? Why don’t Sarah Palin look at her own example at home to see that “accidents” happen, when her own daughter did not think “at that moment” about the consequences of her actions?I cant help it but being puzzled about what these women are really thinking…

  • JoeT1

    Why do people say that abortion should be illegal except for rape and incest? If they claim that it is a life, an innocent life as compared to a death row inmate, then why abort (they would say kill) someone for a crime someone else committed? Is it unfair for the mother? Yes. But wouldn’t it be unfair for the fetus as well? I don’t know.

  • LyndaLBD

    Sarah Palin and all the right wing nuts – STAY OUT OF MY WOMB!

  • nuke41

    Lets all sing the Monte Python song “every sperm is sacred”

  • skipsailing28

    in response to:As if there were a difference here. the left is to be admired. They unabashedly demand it all.For example, if people’s beliefs lead them to conclude that abortion is murder, the left will excoriate them for trying to “shove thier beliefs down our throats” yet these same folks applaud when gays use the courts to advance their radical agenda and never utter a peep about “shoving their beliefs down our throats.”What America needs now is militant christianity. We’re here. We’re faithful and we’re in your face.Two can play this game it seems to me. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

  • Eric12345

    PSOLUS – You wrote, “Well, then, I guess that you do not view an embryo or fetus as a human life, and that you think that privacy concerns trump protecting a life.”Why do you say that? There are ways of preventing abortions other than locking all pregnant women up.The point you’re trying to make is idiotic. I assume you don’t think the government should assign a policeman to follow each of us around all the time in case we decide to steal something, right? But that doesn’t mean you’re not against theft.

  • bruce19

    —Tmullen writes:The real truth is pro-choice isn’t choice at all it is pro-abortion. I love how you label these women as anti-choice. Oh my now what part of choice does this movement give a woman ALL information when it comes to making a choice best suited for her and her baby. We need to make it mandatory that at tax payer funded planned parenthood units that all women are given a sonogram to be able to make an educated choice in this matter, but guess what the truth is you so called choice folks would never want to educate.Posted by: tmullen-GOPgirl | June 16, 2010 11:26 AM—Schmitt writes:

  • bobmoses

    Why are half of the articles on “OnFaith” written by atheists? They certainly get a massively disporportatione amount of articles relateive to their relatively small percentage of the population.Also, the vast majority of the partisan screeds on “OnFaith” have nothing to do with faith at all.Change the name of this blog to “OnLiberalViews”. At least then you would be accurate. This blog has little to do with faith beyond showering scorn on those who demonstrate faith.

  • Imarkex

    Anti-choise? Pray tell who would choose to have their baby killed because the do not want it? Pray tell how can this continue to be allowed in America? What kind of person would do that? I can answer that one.

  • proteusdecision

    Just ask Carly how many abortons she has had…

  • djmolter

    If those who say that God gives you a choice to follow Christ, why can’t they believe that God also grants the right of choice in matters of abortion? I’m a man who has a son, by a woman who at 18 had an abortion before we married. It was choice she lived with until, 15 years after our son was born, she ran into some born-again types at work, who convinced her that everything that had gone wrong in her life was the result of God’s judgment on her for having that abortion. It changed her life, and ours, because we are no longer married — in large part because her personality changed so radically after her born-again encounter that she was no longer the woman I married. She once told me that if they held a gun to my son’s head and threatened to kill him unless I renounced Jesus, I’d better hold to my faith. That was enough for me. Any God that holds me accountable for my actions under extreme duress is not a God I want to worship.I’m pro-choice and have been since I was old enough to reason. I don’t believe in imposing my will on anyone else, and I don’t believe that any government should force any woman to have a baby she doesn’t want, for whatever her reasons may be. Sex-education including the use of birth control seems the only rational way to proceed. Abstinence is a great thing, and I endorse it, but I’m also smart enough to know that sexual feelings are strong and sometimes impossible to overcome and resist at any age. Training in the use of birth-control doesn’t guarantee that it will be used, but it’s a smarter way to approach things than to simply tell a kid — or an adult — to pray for the strength not to have sex.We all live with our decisions and are sometimes forced to live with the decision made by others that affect our lives. The decision to have a child or abort a fetus is a personal one that cannot be made by anyone else.

  • arancia12

    The real truth is pro-choice isn’t choice at all it is pro-abortion. I love how you label these women as anti-choice. Oh my now what part of choice does this movement give a woman ALL information when it comes to making a choice best suited for her and her baby. We need to make it mandatory that at tax payer funded planned parenthood units that all women are given a sonogram to be able to make an educated choice in this matter, but guess what the truth is you so called choice folks would never want to educate.POSTED BY: TMULLEN-GOPGIRLThis is such a flimsy and specious argument. Pro-Choice is exactly that. You can choose to have an abortion or not to have an abortion. That is the definition of choice.No pro-choice person has ever attempted to force those with deformed or inconvenient pregnancies to have an abortion. There have been eugenics movements but they are not pro-choice and they have little influence.On the other hand, the anti-choice movement would take all choice away. A woman could not choose an abortion no matter what the circumstance. If the fetus is deformed and will not come to full term, too bad. If a woman is raped, too bad. If a woman’s life is in danger, too bad. I can’t help but believe this is also unconstitutional. The Constitution gives rights to citizens and defines citizens as those born on American soil or naturalized. Regardless of how to describe it, a fetus or child in the womb has not been born and therefore is not a citizen entitled to the rights of the mother. You advocate stripping a woman of her Constitutional rights! Where does this stop? Can a pregnant woman drive if might endanger her fetus? Can she work? Walk on icy sidewalks? Clean her home? Eat fatty foods? Whose life takes precedence here is the issue, and our Constitution says a woman, naturalize or born on American soil has rights while a fetus does not. If you believe life begins at conception, don’t have an abortion. Pro-choice people celebrate your right to choose. However, as long as we adhere to our Constitution you have no right to interfere in what is my body and my choice. Be careful what you ask for, too. If life begins at conception and you manage to get a Constitutional change to make zygotes citizens then illegals will be having sex on the beaches in order to get pregnant. After all, their fetuses will be citizens at conception. And if you can tell me that my rights are secondary to a clump of cells then I should be able to tell a man he cannot have a vasectomy or any surgery that might render him impotent or sterile. The term “slippery slope” is overused, but in this case it applies perfectly.

  • bruce19

    Just ask one of these über-Christian anti-choice zealots what happens to the mother of an unwanted baby after its birth. Who is going to pay for clothing, food, education, the medical attention a child needs? If the mother is wealthy, no problem. If the mother is poor, she goes on welfare and becomes dependent on the State. Now we have an unwanted baby in the hands of a mother who cannot afford to care for this child. What if the mother is 14 yrs-old? What if the mother is a drug addict? What if the fetus has anencephaly, basically, no brain? Who cares for and pays for the hospital bills that baby incurs as it dies from severe birth defects? Then these same anti-choice Right-wing freaks say, “no more money for welfare, cut State welfare and education budgets. Government is too big!” So, again, these simple-minded, brainwashed vermin who call themselves “religious Christians” are really hate-filled bigots without conscience or morals.

  • askgees

    Once again the PRO MURDER CROWD whines if the rest don’t subscribe to their plans.

  • PSolus

    Eric12345,”The point you’re trying to make is idiotic.”No, the point I am making is beyond your ability to comprehend.”I assume you don’t think the government should assign a policeman to follow each of us around all the time in case we decide to steal something, right?”Correct; because I think personal privacy trumps intrusive security, and I am willing to sacrifice some security for privacy.”But that doesn’t mean you’re not against theft.”Correct again; but I’m not willing to sacrifice privacy for intrusive security.Back to abortion: The privacy of the pregnant woman trumps your desire to impose your ignorant superstitious beliefs on how she should manage her pregnancy.That is why abortion is legal.

  • Californian11

    Thank you, Susan, for referring to these misogynist women as what they are. Anti-CHOICE.

  • iamerican

    The “real Anti-Christ,” as Our Founder termed Rome, “an engine for enslaving mankind,” needs cannon-fodder, chaos, prostitutes and psychopaths, to maintain the Reign of Confusion while it “Fifth Column,” through assassinations, false war, intrigue and political manipulation effects the

  • Eric12345

    PSOLUS – Exactly. And I’m willing to sacrifice some certainty that there won’t be any abortions in order to protect the ability of pregnant women to move about freely (continuing to use your hypothetical). You’ve proved my point. You can be anti-theft while not supporting overbearing policemen, and I can be pro-life without supporting your ridiculously overbearing hypothetical privacy restrictions.Again, your questions for pro-lifers aren’t even a tenth as difficult as you think they are.

  • janecolby

    I am always wondering why a few believe that all are not entitled “have a right.” That doesn’t mean that because a right is there, that an individual excercises it. I have a right to carry a gun. I have the good sense not do do so. Why take away a person’s “right” to come to similar conclusions in this instance?

  • PQSully

    “So when does a woman take responsibility, instead of always wrapping themselves up in choice. I make a choice to have sexual relations. i make a choice not to take any precautions. I make a choice to end a life. How about responsibility for the first two and then you don’t have the consequence of the third. Really tired of people saying, choice, choice, choice until they don’t have to take any responsibility.”Let’s look at an alternate view: What are my options in these situations? In your world, my only alternative to going through with an unwanted and potentially dangerous pregnancy is… to never ever ever have sex? So that even if I am happily married, unless I am willing to go through a dangerous pregnancy or bring a child into a life of poverty or physically endure a pregnancy in which I have no prenatal care because I have no insurance, I should not have sex ever?

  • askgees

    Thank you, Susan, for referring to these misogynist women as what they are. Anti-CHOICE.

  • Dan78

    To be consistent, the anti-choicers should be opposed to abortion in ANY case, EVEN to save the life of the mother. “Committing murder” so another may live, is, after all, still murder, right?No room in their literalist legalistic worldview for nuance. Got to hold them to their “principles”.

  • leafgreen

    @ ariesgirl4Funny, I had the same experience of being yelled at, chased, harassed, etc.. but not by pro-life people, but instead by the women going in when all I was doing was saying the rosary in the parking lot (more than twenty feet from the nearest one). From my experiences it seems to me that the pro-deathers are the hateful ones. And for the record, their boyfriends stink. one of them spent the whole time his wife was in their waxing his car, guess he forced her to abort so he could afford the wax.

  • PQSully

    “For example, if people’s beliefs lead them to conclude that abortion is murder, the left will excoriate them for trying to “shove thier beliefs down our throats” yet these same folks applaud when gays use the courts to advance their radical agenda and never utter a peep about “shoving their beliefs down our throats.”This argument is fallacious. The left is not forcing you or anyone else to be gay, approve of homosexuality, or participate in any homosexual act. Gay advocates simply want to ensure that the rights of gay people are not restricted because of their sexual preference. You can hate gay people all you want, no one will stop you.The Pro-Life/Anti-Choice IS different: I totally respect your right to not want an abortion, to believe it is wrong. I personally don’t know if I could have an abortion myself. But I could never presume to make that decision for another woman. So here’s a question: If science could determine whether a zygote was 100% going to be gay, would all the right-wing conservative Christians find an exception to their anti-choice views?

  • askgees

    I challenge you to go visit a women’s clinic in the DC area (especially in the outer counties) on a Saturday. Watch how anti-choicers chase, harass, and yell at women who are trying to get health services—from regular exams to abortions. It’s appalling. They know no boundaries. The mantra is: we have help for your baby. They’re more concerned about the fetuses than the people will real *life* issues walking this earth.POSTED BY: ARIESGIRL4 | JUNE

  • tarynhamburger

    All these right-wingers crying about abortion being legal… and then continuing to complain when they’re paying for more and more welfare recipients.

  • PSolus

    “I’m willing to sacrifice some certainty that there won’t be any abortions…”So, you think that some women should be free to choose to have abortions, but not all women?What is the magic number? How do you plan to decide which women are free to choice, and which women are not free to choose?”You’ve proved my point.” The point that you are pro-choice for some women, and anti-choice for other women?”You can be anti-theft while not supporting overbearing policemen, and I can be pro-life without supporting your ridiculously overbearing hypothetical privacy restrictions.”What happened to “Well, then, I guess that you do not view an embryo or fetus as a human life, and that you think that privacy concerns trump protecting a life.”You too, apparently “think that privacy concerns trump protecting a life”.

  • leafgreen

    @ tarynhamburgerAnd who will pay for pensions if the young, working age population goes down? Look across the sea at Japan and Greece, where lowering birthrates threaten to destroy their pension systems within the next 30 years. Abortion isn’t just a moral issue, it is also a long term financial nightmare.

  • PQSully

    “So then pro choice means banging anyone you wish and acting as irresponsible as you wish but having the ability to abort any thing that interferes with you continuing ho’ing. CHOSING not to have an abortion is also a CHOICE….. Talk about an id10t!!!!!”I’ll ask my hypothetical question again: I’m married, I have a medical that makes pregnancy dangerous for me, I talk precautions but contraception fails. You are saying I have no other option than to proceed with the pregnancy? Or that I should just never ever ever have sex with my husband?

  • leafgreen

    Fun fact: Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) was an honorary member of the KKK.

  • buckminsterj

    skipsailing: “As if there were a difference here”Yes, Skip, there is a difference. All beliefs are not equal. Those that are substantiated are superior to those that are not. For example, your belief seems to be that my previous comment somehow concerns “the left” or “gays” or “a radical agenda” of some kind. My belief is that my previous comment concerns the need to avoid creating laws based on superstition. A quick look at my previous post will show that my belief regarding this matter is substantiated and that yours is not. Therefore, mine is superior. Get it?

  • leafgreen

    A quote by Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood and honorary KKK member)”We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

  • leafgreen

    Another quote by Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood and honorary KKK member)”Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.

  • leafgreen

    Yet ANOTHER quote by Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood and honorary KKK member)”The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

  • Eric12345

    PSOLUS – Now I think you’re deliberately obfuscating the point. You said that in order to be pro-life I had to support locking up all pregnant women to ensure they don’t get abortions. I said this is ridiculous, just like assigning everyone a personal policeman to prevent theft is ridiculous. You agreed.The right to life trumps privacy concerns. I assume you’d agree (Assume you think a policeman should be allowed to enter a home if he suspects violence is being done). What we disagree about is whether a fetus is a human life, and that’s fine. But this whole privacy argument of yours doesn’t put pro-lifers in a bind, as I’ve shown.

  • cristina1999us

    @ LeafgreenFunny, I had the same experience of being yelled at, chased, harassed, etc.. but not by pro-life people, but instead by the women going in when all I was doing was saying the rosary in the parking lot (more than twenty feet from the nearest one). From my experiences it seems to me that the pro-deathers are the hateful ones. And for the record, their boyfriends stink. one of them spent the whole time his wife was in their waxing his car, guess he forced her to abort so he could afford the wax.___________________________________________You have all the right to pray what you want. And to be consistant, I would defend your freedom of doing so in a heartbeat. You even have the right to go, do and use your religious politics to try to influence those who shout at you, which is what you are basically trying to do. Everything comes with a price – the yelling – for both sides. You are not doing this because you care about these women, but for your OWN beliefs on the matter. So you are no victim here. Take it or leave it. Those women did not ask you to go and pray for them.For the boyfriend waxing the car, I am assuming he is not allowed in the operation room. So, what do you suggest him to do? Talking to you?

  • hitpoints

    Askgees wrote: CHOSING not to have an abortion is also a CHOICE….. =========And no one in the pro-choice crowd is denying that deciding to carry to term is a choice, nor are they trying to restrict anyone from making that choice.That’s what choice is all about. It’s not about pro-abortion. It’s about, when a woman is pregnant, who gets to make the decisions of:- will the pregnancy be aborted?These are the choices pregnant women face. Who resolves the choices into a decision? The pregnant woman herself, or the government (shall I say, the Statists who wish to make that choice for her?)

  • leafgreen

    “No. No one forces anyone to terminate a pregnancy. Don’t believe in abortion? Don’t have one. “Hollow argument and you know it. It would be like me saying “don’t believe in rape? then don’t rape people but let me continue as a matter of personal privacy.”

  • hitpoints

    From Leafgreen: “From my experiences it seems to me that the pro-deathers are the hateful ones. And for the record, their boyfriends stink. one of them spent the whole time his wife was in their waxing his car, guess he forced her to abort so he could afford the wax.”Leafgreen, thy name is Irony.

  • pgibson1

    Whenever two beings – make that TWO – donors of haploid cells, an egg and a sperm, and a third is made from that, there is no question as to which of the two is the donor to the new being.they both are.To think that one of these donors is more fit to be the donor, when all is said and done, is a moot point.All I see here is women trying to make claims that the children they are half donors to are somehow the exclusive domain of women.Nope, they’re not.They’re half of the picture.END OF STORY.

  • leafgreen

    @ Cristinaand I suppose the women were shouting purely for philanthropic, non self interested reasons? And I haven’t even covered what they yelled at the children in attendance.As for the guy waxing his car, he didn’t even follow her into the waiting room (where I’m sure he WAS allowed, just shoved her to the clinic and in the door with one hand, went to his car, and started treating it like you’d expect someone to treat a cute puppy rather than a machine. Sickening, really.

  • Secular

    Both Carly Fiorina, & Meg Whitman have betrayed their own conscience and themselves. These two well accomplished professionals, in case of Whitman also an accomplished manager & entrepreneur, power seems to have propelled them more than doing good. I am certain that they were initially motivated to bring their skills to the public domain. The skill from private sector are easily transferable to public office is debatable. They by choosing the republican party have trapped themselves. Rather than trying to jump to a state wide elective office, they should have tried to change the Republican party by working from the ground level up. Neither of them could really be holding the views they have espoused during the primaries and be so successful in the private sector. In case of Fiorina, it is well documented that her views on abortion were far more left of the republican party. Likewise Whitman’s views on immigration are far more centrist than she espoused. But in their case being republican they could not get the nominations if they had not moved to the right end of the spectrum. Republican party is trapped into unflinching dogmatic position that no one can get nominated without toeing the party-line 100%. Then for them to track back after being elected is impossible. Their thirst for getting elected and the compromises of conscience they undergo prevents them from doing the very thing they are initially motivated to run for office.For instance it was recently revealed that “W” was reportedly said in private conversation back 2003 or so, that he does not feel that he should tell a young man that he cannot marry someone because his partner is also male. But he went on to use the gay marriage as a wedge issue in 2004. Such are the compromises like these keep you from doing what you set out to do. It is a shame that someone like Whitman, should she win cannot do what she set out to do. I don’t give a hoot for Fiorina, she is a low life, for the way she justified her rationale for her pro-choice switch.Now to all the pro-lifers on the forum. Without appealing to your nonsensical biblical interpretations of soul, etc, etc, Put forth your arguments. You guys don’t just stop with anti-abortion agnda, then you go on the attack against contraception, etc, etc. Ponder over the case of Chimeras, what do you think happened to the two souls, when the two zygotes merge into one fetus. If you are so sure that if an abortion is killing of the soul. You guys need to first figure out if there is dog, up there in the sky. then we can figure out what it thinks.

  • Wildthing1

    The mind body problem in western religion… the body can decide spontaneously what to do but no one is allowed to think for themselves even though their life is also on the line and the emerging fact that our planet can only absorb a certain amount of liveliness… without adversely affecting life itself…

  • muawiyah

    LEPIDOPTERYX ~ regarding whether or not you have an obligation to have babies to fund my retirement, I am not too sure that the same moral precept behind that requires that I provide police protection to you while you kill babies.What ya’ think?If you want AUTONOMY you have to be willing to live autonomously. Since the pro-choice types don’t, they become interlinked with everyone else and just flat out lose the right to use the autonomy argument.Come, let us reason together. You give up killing babies, and I’ll continue to pay taxes to protect you from my friends, OK?!

  • cristina1999us

    @ AgapN9Abortion is a national security issue – our low birth rate has destabilized the country and promoted immigration of terrorist and anti-american as well as anti-freedom of religion muslims and an overwhelming flood of poor immigrants from central america. ___________________________________________Low birth rates have nothing to do with abortion, but with contraception. Do you want take that away as well?I am also an atheist. I don’t want, for sure, to pray 7 times at Meca, wear a Burqa or having to rely in a man to even go to the shoestore. But I do not want your Salem trials at my door either. If you are concern about America’s population, you can have all the children you want.

  • leafgreen

    A quote by Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood and honorary KKK member)

  • skipsailing28

    in response to this:No.if you have to declare yourself superior then you are the only one who gets it.You just don’t have much in the way of argument because if you did, you’d use it.Not even a nice try.next!

  • PSolus

    “You said that in order to be pro-life I had to support locking up all pregnant women to ensure they don’t get abortions.”No, I didn’t. I asked you if you would be in favor of trumping women’s privacy in order to protect what you believe is the “life” that may be inside their bodies.”I said this is ridiculous, just like assigning everyone a personal policeman to prevent theft is ridiculous. You agreed.”I did not agree. I stated that privacy trumps security in the case of theft, and that privacy trumps your attempts to enforce your superstitious beliefs on women.”The right to life trumps privacy concerns.”Then, why are you not in favor of sacrificing women’s privacy to protect the “life” or potential “life” that they may be carrying?”What we disagree about is whether a fetus is a human life, and that’s fine. But this whole privacy argument of yours doesn’t put pro-lifers in a bind, as I’ve shown.”Yes it does: You cannot protect the “life” in a woman’s body if you do not know it is there, and you cannot know it is there without invading her privacy.And, if you know that a “life” is in a woman’s body, you cannot protect that life if she is free to walk around to get an abortion.Therefore, if you are not willing to trample on the privacy of women, you are admitting that the “life” or potential “life” inside their bodies is not worth protecting.

  • leafgreen

    “Low birth rates have nothing to do with abortion….”Riiiiiiiiiigggggghhhhhht…….and I suppose CO2 has nothing to do with global warming, that icebergs had nothing to do with the sinking of the Titanic, and that Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with the US joining WWII………….. Why is it, then, that countries with more abortions have lower birth rates (and by extension, major pension deficits down the road).

  • lildg54

    Susan’s writing reminds me of the movie “Searching for Bobby Fisher”.Susan continues, as do many, to make abortion a “cultural” or even a “religious” issue. It is not. It is a “societal” issue that simply involves a decision based on responsibility and accountability.

  • studioroom

    I don’t know about you people, but I had to be BORN before I got my birth certificate, and was legally recognized as a human being and counted as a citizen of this country.Are the anti-choice people actually suggesting that we start handing out “conception certificates” for every – single – pregnancy? What do they actually want in this whole life vs. choice argument? What are they really asking for here?The anti-choice people can bang their pulpits all they want, but until they can frame their cause around some actionable and realistic solutions then … they don’t have an argument. Period. And dredging up some sympathetic female politicians is not an argument. Great op/ed Susan – thanks

  • skipsailing28

    In response to:One question I haven’t seen an answer to is this “Why are atheists so angry?” What it is about atheism that leads people to be so ugly?Can the comment above be any more offensive?

  • lildg54

    With total reproductive control SHOULD come total reproductive responsibility!Totally agree with you, and that’s exactly what I did when I learned that I was pregnant with my daughter. I told my ex that he had two choices – he could be involved with his child, INCLUDING providing financial support, or he could be relieved of any and all responsibility, and I wouldn’t even bother to notify him when it was born. He decided that he wanted to be a daddy, with all that entailed.

  • leafgreen

    A quote by Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood and honorary KKK member)

  • cristina1999us

    @ Cristina——————————————You did not read my message. I said both sides were shouting. And of course they have an agenda. Like you. They defend the choice of women to decide what to do with their wombs. You defend your right to tell them what to do with what it is not yours: their wombs. As I said, you are doing your politics, suck it up and deal with it.So, if you guys are individualistic to pursue everything, it has to be individualistic all the way.You do not know how people feel. You assume they were fine. Did you talk to the guy instead of praying your rosary? I do not know anyone who has had an abortion and has been happy about it. Do you? But may be you are a mind reader and also, appart from knowing what other women have to do with their wombs, you also know what every couple feels about when they have to abort a fetus.

  • buckminsterj

    skipsailing: “if you have to declare yourself superior then you are the only one who gets it.”Again, you demonstrate no reading comprehension and a general inability to connect facts with a relevant argument . . .I did not declare that I am superior to you. I declared that my substantiated belief is superior to your unsubstantiated belief. You know, because truth is based on evidence rather than fantasy?Go back and look. It’s all very clear.

  • lildg54

    LEPIDOPTERYX ~ regarding whether or not you have an obligation to have babies to fund my retirement, I am not too sure that the same moral precept behind that requires that I provide police protection to you while you kill babies.You are a oron how about this you follow the law pay our taxes choose to live how you see fit within the law and leave everybody else’s biz to them cause it is none of yours how about that

  • 2comment

    So….. let’s work to get government off all of our backs provided that it still remains in a woman’s womb.

  • Eric12345

    PSOLUS – If that’s the question you intended to ask me, why didn’t you just ask it instead of proposing the ridiculous hypotheticals? Yes, as I said, the right to life trumps the right to privacy. And I’m not in favor of locking up all pregnant women to keep them from having an abortion because you don’t lock people up simply for existing.It’s pretty basic. I’ll try this analogy one more time because you don’t seem to get it. You’re anti-theft. But you don’t propose locking everyone up because they might, at some point, steal. Likewise, I don’t propose locking every woman up because they might, at some point, have an abortion. We should prohibit the act of stealing and we should prohibit the act of getting an abortion. The potential of something happening is not enough to lock someone up. There are actions that are too extreme to take in order to protect all life. If you think about this principle for perhaps a minute, you’d agree.You’re right that banning abortion will not prevent all abortions from taking place. Just like outlawing murder doesn’t prevent all murders. But if one believes murder is wrong and that a fetus is a life, then the right to life of that fetus trumps the right to privacy.

  • Impeachbush99

    OMG, of COURSE Carly Fiorina apposes abortion, she has absolutely NOTHING to worry about, who in their right mind would EVER want to have sex with that hideous beast!???

  • c_attucks

    I am pro-choice, yet, I am against abortion personally. That is MY choice that I choose to exercise under the current laws of this country. It is not my responsibility to impose my views on other women who, for reasons of their own, choose to abort or choose to carry the fetus to full term. And I do NOT want to see the government telling me what I should do personally on this subject.

  • PQSully

    “All I see here is women trying to make claims that the children they are half donors to are somehow the exclusive domain of women. Nope, they’re not. They’re half of the picture. END OF STORY.”At the instant of conception? Yes, man and woman are half donors. But after that one instant and for the next 9 months, it’s Mom only. That zygote/fetus is in HER body, attached to her body, FEEDING from her body, affecting the health and balance of her body. Until birth, the fetus is essentially part of Mom’s body, and that’s what makes any decision regarding the pregnancy hers. How can you claim that the donation of sperm gives the father equal decision-making rights?Don’t get me wrong, I DO believe that father’s opinion’s should be taken into consideration, and I agree with the guy who said earlier that–if a woman chooses to have a child and the father doesn’t want any part of it, he shouldn’t be forced to. But that goes back to the woman having the right to make that choice.

  • arancia12

    Choosing an abortion is, very simply, an act by an individual who CHOOSES to act irresponsibly. Period. It’s not about Republicans, Tea Parties, or global warming. It’s about CHOOSING to be held accountable.Someday Susan might get it, but I’m not in the least hopeful.POSTED BY: GLOBALONE So please tell me when we get to regulate people acting responsibly and who get to regulate it.I think the Duggars are irresponsible to bring so many children into a world of finite resources. Do I get to regulate Mrs. Duggar’s womb?Do I get to regulate your irresponsibility in who you sleep with? Do women who are raped have a responsibility in that? Is it irresponsible to try and save your own life if the unborn fetus is killing you? Tax abortion, teach people there are alternatives, OK. But you have no right to decide whether I have behaved responsibly or not. And you are not the authority on responsible behavior.

  • skipsailing28

    now this:yes, it really does all come down to framing the issue, doesn’t it. In this the party of death folks wish to consider themselves a “pro choice”.for those of us who have watched the 99% fat free madison avenue nonsense this is just prevarication. Face it you support the termination of life in the womb.And it appears you’re darned angry about the fact that people disagree with your position. Oh well.What this anti abortion person is “for” is the simple recognition of life in the womb. And exactly what problems in your mind cry out for “actionable solutions”?

  • leafgreen

    “OMG, of COURSE Carly Fiorina apposes abortion, she has absolutely NOTHING to worry about, who in their right mind would EVER want to have sex with that hideous beast!???”Hateful, and you can hardly be talking since you support the likes of Pelosi (now THERE’s an ugly politician!)

  • leafgreen

    “You’re right that banning abortion will not prevent all abortions from taking place. Just like outlawing murder doesn’t prevent all murders. But if one believes murder is wrong and that a fetus is a life, then the right to life of that fetus trumps the right to privacy.”Truer words have never been spoken. Thanks.

  • leafgreen

    A quote by Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood and honorary KKK member)

  • PSolus

    Eric12345,”There are actions that are too extreme to take in order to protect all life.”Yes, you do indeed agree with my point: Banning abortion is one of those actions that are too extreme to take in order to protect your superstitious beliefs.

  • leafgreen

    @ psolusWhat about YOUR superstitious belief that sentience only begins when the head leaves the womb, rather than when the brain develops? For a party that claims to be all about scientific evidence, you Democrats are pretty hypocritical on this point.

  • arancia12

    Once again the PRO MURDER CROWD whines if the rest don’t subscribe to their plans.POSTED BY: ASKGEES Then you purposely miss the point. You don’t HAVE to subscribe to my plan or my point of view. If you thin abortion is murder, then don’t have one. If you want to encourage women not to have abortions, then knock yourself out.You are the one who wishes to force me to subscribe to your plan. You don’t care what my viewpoint is as long as I am legally prevented from doing what I believe is right. In your world war is peace and freedom is slavery.

  • rgv1129

    @leafgreenSo, let me get this straight. You feel that there exists some imperative for me to create enough social security “slaves” to support you in your dotage. Pray tell, does this imperative carry the same moral weight as your other claims?

  • _BSH

    The abortionists (“pro-choice,” as they like it) argument depends entirely on avoiding the most central and fundamental question involved in the issue: at what point does life begin, and when is it okay to end a life purely on the “choice” of the mother? Abortionists, to make their points and to avoid appearing as monsters, must scrupulously avoid that fundamental question. But that question is the heart of the argument. So long as that question is avoided, rational discussion of abortion is not even possible. On this count, Jacoby fails. It’s just another screed, just another rant against those who oppose the “choice” of ending a life. I’d like to hear Jacoby address the REAL issue of abortion: when DOES life begin? When is it okay/not okay to end an innocent life?

  • bitterblogger

    It bears mentioning that pro-choicers don’t interfere with anyone else’s decision on whether to abort or not. Most any woman who wants children can have them, and should, provided they have the financial means of support. Of course, for the anti-choice crowd, there’s a moral imperative that won’t let them rest. They would carry the debate if they also consistently supported children and families after birth. Paradoxically, they all too often focus solely on the fetus to the exclusion of the former. It’s either illogical, or worse, craven, and no wonder they’re bitterly opposed.

  • leafgreen

    Oh, well….I have no further time to speak with proponents of a tradition formally founded by a KKK member (Margaret Sanger). I’ll leave the racist abortion proponents to their self loathing.

  • PQSully

    “It’s pretty basic. I’ll try this analogy one more time because you don’t seem to get it. You’re anti-theft. But you don’t propose locking everyone up because they might, at some point, steal. Likewise, I don’t propose locking every woman up because they might, at some point, have an abortion. We should prohibit the act of stealing and we should prohibit the act of getting an abortion. The potential of something happening is not enough to lock someone up. There are actions that are too extreme to take in order to protect all life. If you think about this principle for perhaps a minute, you’d agree.”We agree this far: locking up people because they might commit a crime is ludicrous. But if you criminalize abortion, you MUST answer the question: what punishment do you suggest for the women who break the law by having an abortion or the medical professionals who provide them? If abortion = murder, are they all to be prosecuted for murder? If a woman states that she wants to get an abortion, will that be sufficient to charge her with conspiracy to commit murder?I am not asking these questions facetiously; these questions address the reality of outlawing abortion, and I have yet to hear someone describe how they think such a law would be enforced. What are the penalties?

  • lucestella18

    Dear Media Darlings,Let’s get the terms straight PLEASE!!The term PRO-LIFE MUST mean what it states: which is men and women who actually are invested in saving ALL lives on this planet, not holding up SIGNS of protest because you wish to impose your twisted sense of who you are onto other women and men. Please be Pro-Life & get a LIFE! Save lives & go to your local animal shelter & rescue animals that need homes, go to the Gulf of Mexico and volunteer in saving lives there, work at a hospital, etc…I AM A WOMAN who is proud to make her own choices in life (choices that not everyone may agree with), but choices that are sacred to my life & others. Proud to be PRO-CHOICE, who is about PRO-LIFE. Let’s stop confusing these terms NOW!!!

  • Eric12345

    PSOLUSAnd I disagree. I don’t think it is. But we knew from the start that we disagree on this point. We both have chosen different points on the continuum of human development where we think life should be protected under law. And we both want the law to recognize our chosen points. As I said, that’s fine. But your original questions about Griswald and privacy are irrelevant to this discussion.

  • leafgreen

    @ RGVNo. Personally if I’m still alive at 65 I’m probably offing myself on a peacekeeping mission or some other military expedition. but I thought a liberal who didn’t believe in the afterlife would at least worry about funding his/her “golden years.” If I can’t appeal to your heart I thought I could at least appeal to your wallet with financial facts.

  • PSolus

    leafgreen,”What about YOUR superstitious belief that sentience only begins when the head leaves the womb, rather than when the brain develops?”I have no beliefs, superstitious or otherwise. The superstitious belief that you state is yours alone. “For a party that claims to be all about scientific evidence, you Democrats are pretty hypocritical on this point.”That I am a Democrat is simply your superstitious belief.

  • Jihadist

    Helloooo…..this topic again Ms. Jacoby? No doubt. You are a passionate and spirited atheist.

  • arancia12

    Fun fact: Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) was an honorary member of the KKK.POSTED BY: LEAFGREENFun fact: Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. You imply we should disparage Sanger for being an honorary member of the KKK (and what does that mean? I am an honorary member of an organization and I didn’t ask to be). I also challenge you to give some credible proof of this. If your point is valid then we should disparage Thomas Jefferson and all he stood for, including establishment of the USA. You logic leaves something to be desired.

  • cook710

    I am a Christian, but before I came to follow God in my life, I was a different person. I had an abortion and afterward, I hated myself. My own journey started because I had gotten to the point where I was going so far against what I felt God telling me to do that it was obvious to me I was running away from Him. I think that just as God gave us free will, we cannot hold all women to the same standard, based on our beliefs as Christians. Jesus did not come to Earth to make us follow the ten commandments- he came to free us from them, because no human is capable of living a perfect life. He gave us the gift of making mistakes without being alienated from God- and even if I hate the effects, even if the thought of all the giggling, perfect children- including my own, who will never be born, haunts me- I cannot do what God would not. I will not respond to any comments towards me- I am offering what I have, and I do not need to be attacked or defended for what I have shared. We all make mistakes- but God has forgiven us, and it is devastatingly beautiful.

  • JohnGaltIsHere

    “And Palin is the mistress of the art of claiming moral standing as a result of what she does with her reproductive system. Remember all the times she exhibited her Down syndrome son on the campaign trail in 2008?” Obviously you think he is a waste of life and should have been aborted. And I hate Palin, but come on. I also hear this “stay out of my womb” stuff, but it is false – once you get pregenant you share that womb with what is undoubtedly life. And I’m an atheist. There really is no other way to view abortion other than the killing of one life to suit another. Period.

  • rgv1129

    @greenleafNo. Personally if I’m still alive at 65 I’m probably offing myself on a peacekeeping mission or some other military expedition. but I thought a liberal who didn’t believe in the afterlife would at least worry about funding his/her “golden years.” If I can’t appeal to your heart I thought I could at least appeal to your wallet with financial facts.”You seem to be making a number of assumptions about me which are not discernible from my posting. Perhaps you’re privy to some hidden truths that the rest of us are not? From whence comes this power of divination?However, let’s examine your “financial facts”. You seem to be assuming that only a growth-based economy is possible and perhaps even preferable. Such a growth- based economy might well require an ever-increasing population to work, but I have some reality for you — the Earth and its resources are finite. Unlimited growth is not possible. The point at which the biome can no longer support human life is unknown, but certainly also definite. So, with your amazing powers of divination noted in the prior paragraph, please illuminate us as to when that point will be reached. Will it be within your lifetime, mine, my children, your children’s?But, please answer my earlier question about this moral imperative for me to produce drones for your continued existence.

  • Eric12345

    PQSULLY – Those are actually good questions that pro-life people wrestle with. You’d probably get varied answers. I’ve heard some people say they’d merely want to prosecute the abortionist. Others say throw the book at anyone and everyone involved.Personally, I think there’d have to be some sort of criminal penalty for the women who chose to get an abortion. I’m not a lawyer so I don’t even know what the average penalty is for murder (and I know there’s different types of “murder” as far as the law goes), but the penalty would have to be severe enough to serve as a deterrent. I know this sounds callous and like I don’t care what kind of pressure a woman is going through when she’s pregnant, but this type of format doesn’t lend itself to long, thoughtful discussions.

  • skipsailing28

    in response to:Of course we have the right to decide who has behaved responsibily and who has not. What do you think the legal system exists for just to bring a stop to any activity the left finds inappropriate (such as oil drilling and school prayer)?Judging the behavior of others is central to a civil society. Without that ability we’d have anarchy. Is that what you’re proposing?If you think that Americans should face legal limits on the number of children they may bear, by all means advocate for this. It has worked so well in that country that Tom Friedman so admires: China!As to rape and incest, here’s the fundamental view: did the child chose its parents? but it should die any way, right?the choice between mother and child is a tough one. The catholics chose the child. Some mom’s believe otherwise. But the question is, how often do either of these circumstances obtain that we should slaughter millions of other fetuses for the sake of those few?As a society we have not only the right, but the obligation to regulate our behavior. Think about that the next time you stop at a red light.

  • cristina1999us

    The abortionists (“pro-choice,” as they like it) argument depends entirely on avoiding the most central and fundamental question involved in the issue: at what point does life begin, and when is it okay to end a life purely on the “choice” of the mother? Abortionists, to make their points and to avoid appearing as monsters, must scrupulously avoid that fundamental question. But that question is the heart of the argument. So long as that question is avoided, rational discussion of abortion is not even possible. —————————————–Under US law, life begins at the time of birth.So, now that you have your answer. What is your argument against choice “before life begins”?And I must say goodbye as well. Susan, excelent post. Although I not always agree with you, I read all your posts.

  • arancia12

    All I see here is women trying to make claims that the children they are half donors to are somehow the exclusive domain of women.Nope, they’re not.They’re half of the picture.END OF STORY.POSTED BY: PGIBSON1________________Whose body does the fetus rely on for life? The man’s? I realize this is not fair but it is God’s way. Women conceive and women’s bodies give life. How about a little responsibility from men? If they don’t want abortion then perhaps they should keep it zipped up. Why do women bear the burden when men have unprotected sex?

  • leafgreen

    @ ArcaniaHere’s your proof of the attitude that got her the position. The Planned Parenthood founder was a racist bigot every bit as bad as any so called “tea bagger.”_______________________________________Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

  • PSolus

    Eric12345,My concern is existing life; your concern is your superstitious beliefs.My concern is personal freedom and privacy; your concern is imposing your superstitious beliefs on others.My concern is ensuring that women have the freedom to manage their lives as they see fit; your concern is forcing women to manage their lives as you see fit, according to your superstitious beliefs.

  • leafgreen

    “Fun fact: Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.”__________________________________-He was also a liberal who argued for separation of church and state. See how often racism and liberalism go together?

  • Eric12345

    PSOLUS – Good fall back position. I like it.

  • rohit57

    “Personally, I think there’d have to be some sort of criminal penalty for the women who chose to get an abortion. I’m not a lawyer so I don’t even know what the average penalty is for murder (and I know there’s different types of “murder” as far as the law goes), but the penalty would have to be severe enough to serve as a deterrent.”I don’t see this at all. What about one month’s public service for each month of the age of the foetus? A lot of people would soon realize, “Gee, there are such things as contraceptives!”And for those who got pregnant accidentally, they can have an early abortion, do their one month public service, and be home free. Maybe they too will not have an accident the next time.As to someone who just wants men to keep their pants zipped, I would like to ask, “And exactly how do you suppose YOU were born?”Male hatred is passe! Those women who still drink that bitter brew of hating men, they have had their days and better days are in store for all of us.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    skipsailing:”the choice between mother and child is a tough one. The catholics chose the child. Some mom’s believe otherwise. But the question is, how often do either of these circumstances obtain that we should slaughter millions of other fetuses for the sake of those few?As a society we have not only the right, but the obligation to regulate our behavior. Think about that the next time you stop at a red light.”Do infants and children (I’m setting aside adults for the moment) also have the right to live, and are we obligated to see that they do?

  • PSolus

    Eric12345,”PSOLUS – Good fall back position. I like it.”Thanks; it took some doing to dumb it down enough for you.Hope it helps.

  • rohit57

    “Personally, I think there’d have to be some sort of criminal penalty for the women who chose to get an abortion. I’m not a lawyer so I don’t even know what the average penalty is for murder (and I know there’s different types of “murder” as far as the law goes), but the penalty would have to be severe enough to serve as a deterrent.”I don’t see this at all. What about one month’s public service for each month of the age of the foetus? A lot of people would soon realize, “Gee, there are such things as contraceptives!”And for those who got pregnant accidentally, they can have an early abortion, do their one month public service, and be home free. Maybe they too will not have an accident the next time.As to someone who just wants men to keep their pants zipped, I would like to ask, “And exactly how do you suppose YOU were born?”Male hatred is passe! Those women who still drink that bitter brew of hating men, they have had their days and better days are in store for all of us.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    Hello, Rohit,Please bear with me here, since my question is on topic.Do infants and children (I’m setting aside adults for the moment) also have the right to live, and are we obligated to see that they do?

  • arancia12

    Of course we have the right to decide who has behaved responsibily and who has not. What do you think the legal system exists for just to bring a stop to any activity the left finds inappropriate (such as oil drilling and school prayer)?Judging the behavior of others is central to a civil society. Without that ability we’d have anarchy. Is that what you’re proposing?If you think that Americans should face legal limits on the number of children they may bear, by all means advocate for this. It has worked so well in that country that Tom Friedman so admires: China!As to rape and incest, here’s the fundamental view: did the child chose its parents? but it should die any way, right?the choice between mother and child is a tough one. The catholics chose the child. Some mom’s believe otherwise. But the question is, how often do either of these circumstances obtain that we should slaughter millions of other fetuses for the sake of those few?As a society we have not only the right, but the obligation to regulate our behavior. Think about that the next time you stop at a red light.POSTED BY: SKIPSAILING28The Catholics do not run our government and we embrace separation of church and state. We may regulate corporate responsibility but not individual. I think you posts are incredibly irresponsible. That is your freedom to choose. Your comments about oil drilling and school prayer are disingenuous. As you can see, irresponsible oil drilling can affect millions of livelihoods. School prayer is unconstitutional. Please point out the Constitutional article that makes abortion illegal. We have the obligation and the right to regulate our own behavior, not our neighbors. Only if it affects our neighbor’s life can it be REGULATED by the state. I fail to see how my choice to have an abortion affects you at all. You may judge my behavior all you want but central to a civilize society are laws. Laws dictate what can and can’t be done based upon foundational documents. We don’t wholesale decide that we don’t like the plants our neighbor put in his yard or the kind of car she drives. We base our judgments on laws that are in turn derived from the Constitution.What you advocate is anarchy. The idea that we can just randomly decide what is irresponsible and should be regulated and what isn’t. I think tattoos are irresponsible. Can I suddenly decide to regulate that? You think black eye liner is irresponsible. Does a law suddenly exist to regulate it’s use? I hate tramp stamps. I can judge them all I wish but regulate them? Not wise. Your thinking is skewed.

  • EddieNJ

    From the perspective of the Federal government, Abortion rights can and should be debated without resorting to any mention of the morality of the act itself.Although I generally support a person’s right to make decisions regarding her/his self, I do not see anything in the U.S. Constitution which guarantees that right. The Roe v Wade SOCUS decision was a gross extension of the Federal government’s authority. The 10th (I think it’s 10th) amendment says anything that is not specifically described as the responsibility of the Federal government must be considered NOT to be such. So laws regarding medical procedures are supposed to be left to the States. Again, I must say that I would hope the States would NOT restrict women’s reproductive rights; but I believe the States have the power to do so, under the Constituion as it exists.Even when describing the justification for Roe v Wade, liberals are forced into using the term “penumbra rights”. This means that the “right” discovered in this case is admittadly not found in the law (i.e. the Constitution) as written. It is not found in the immediate shadow (“umbra”) of law as written. It is found only in the fuzzy edges of the shadows (“penumbra”) of the actual Constitution. Maybe this right should be protected. Maybe, but in fact it isn’t. The court made it up. The justices ruled not on the laws as written; they ruled based on the laws as the justices wished they were written. For this reason, Roe v Wade should be reversed.Look at it this way: There is no logical way the justification for Roe v Wade can apply to abortion and not also to tatoos and piercings – yet restrictions on those are myriad and not challenged.

  • skipsailing28

    answer to PQSULLY:Enough said?

  • catherine3

    The thing about Fiorina – I don’t really believe she is anti-abortion or pro-life or whatever you want to call it, anyway. She is just spinning a tale to curry favor with the current dominant strain in the Republican party. I mean, she was pro-choice not that long ago. Now she trots out these personal stories as proof she follows the pro-life line, but why should anyone believe that really? And along with that, why should anyone trust a person who can so easily change their beliefs? That’s one thing that is so puzzling about the religious right types, they are so gullible towards people who claim to have found religion and (supposedly) renounce their former ways. I wonder why anyone would think Fiorina is particularly sincere about this or anything else.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    ANY AND ALL PRO-LIFERS:Please bear with me here, since my question is on topic.Do infants and children (I’m setting aside adults for the moment) also have the right to live, and are we obligated to see that they do?

  • rgv1129

    @leafgreenYou responded with “From whence comes this power of divination?”I fail to see how mathematics (which, by the way, are purely a human artifact) and peer-reviewed (let me help you with that spelling) studies can afford you powers of divination that would allow you to intuit my political bias or motivations.So, once again, please enlighten me. And this time, a little coherency, please.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    Hi Gimpi,I’ve been posting that which follows for quite awhile now and still no takers. Any theories about why not?———————Please bear with me here, since my question is on topic.Do infants and children (I’m setting aside adults for the moment) also have the right to live, and are we obligated to see that they do?

  • rohit57

    Farnaz_Mansouri2 said: “Women, on average, earn less than men who do the same work. The glass ceiling may be cracked but it is holding up well.”Being a man in America is no bed of roses.America imprisons its men at a rate which is 30 times the rate of India’s. But American women, I am afraid, specialize in complaining, and American men think it is not macho to complain. So women have the “whining podium” to themselves. And that leads to a distorted perception from all of us. Women claim that “men have it all, and women are still trying to catch up”, and men buy into this nonsense.

  • arancia12

    As to someone who just wants men to keep their pants zipped, I would like to ask, “And exactly how do you suppose YOU were born?”Male hatred is passe! Those women who still drink that bitter brew of hating men, they have had their days and better days are in store for all of us.POSTED BY: ROHIT57 ______________I think I was born because my father had sex responsibly. Another poster said that a fetus was half of the man. Then the man should practice safe sex too. You would punish women who become irresponsibly pregnant and get and abortion, then how about punishing men who don’t practice safe sex. Hating women is so passe! Time for men to take some responsibility. You women-haters want it both ways, you want the ability to tell a woman she must bear a child, you want the ability to have unprotected sex with no consequences, and you want to punish women for your choices. Obviously you pine for the days of male domination. Good for you. There are countries that will meet your needs.

  • buckminsterj

    JohnGaltIsHere: “There really is no other way to view abortion other than the killing of one life to suit another. Period.”Yup, that’s abortion – and so many other unpleasant but acceptable and necessary human practices. Do you eat meat? Do you take antibiotics when you’re sick? Do you furnish your home with wood tables, chairs, etc.? What are your thoughts on the killing of, for example, Nazi soldiers during WWII?Much of human existance is predicated on taking life to suit another. To minimize the tragedy of this inescapable reality, we must try to properly assess the value of each life. And by most criteria, an embryo is pretty far down on the totem pole.

  • corp21

    no one has the right to choose to take another person’s life, even if that person is inside them. unless having that person will cause you to loose your own.

  • arancia12

    But American women, I am afraid, specialize in complaining, and American men think it is not macho to complain. So women have the “whining podium” to themselves.And that leads to a distorted perception from all of us. Women claim that “men have it all, and women are still trying to catch up”, and men buy into this nonsense.POSTED BY: ROHIT57 |________________Wow. Somebodies mommy was mean to him.Maybe this idea will suit you.Men and women should not have sex until they sign a pre-natal agreement. The agreement will specify who has authority over the fetus. The agreement will state whether the woman can seek an abortion if her life is in danger. If either fails to live up to their agreement they get the stocks and a scarlet letter. Whaddya think?

  • Eric12345

    FARNAZ_MANSOURI asks (multiple times):”Do infants and children (I’m setting aside adults for the moment) also have the right to live, and are we obligated to see that they do?”Yes, infants and children (and adults) all have the right to live and we should ensure that right is protected by law.

  • buckminsterj

    “no one has the right to choose to take another person’s life, even if that person is inside them. unless having that person will cause you to loose your own”corp21, Please define “person” and explain how it applies to a zygote, embryo, and fetus.

  • kenger1

    The only justification for a legal right of abortion is one based on a sincere belief that the act of abortion does not take the life of another human being. This is not a question that should be left to an individual woman to decide for herself.It was up to the Supreme Court to render a judgment about the life of a preborn. Instead, the majority who ruled in favor of Roe v Wade opted to sidestep this critically decisive consideration by characterizing it as an unsettled question.Since the burden of proof lies in making a sound argument as to why a preborn cannot be considered to be a human life, this ruling was wrongly decided and should be overturned on these grounds.

  • newdadchicago

    To all those ludicrous radical religious right-wingers out there: you are a ridiculously stupid, unthinking, fascist bunch! People like skipsailing I just wonder about–could they truly be as retarded as they seem???! It’s breathtaking. First of all, has anyone noticed that the radical right-wingers essentially want to shut down any kind of dialogue involving what radical right-wingers like Sarah Palin are trying to accomplish in our society??? The Palins et al (and there are countless “et als,” unfortunately!) are like the American Taliban, trying to force the rest of American society to knuckle under to their ludicrous political beliefs and demands, all for power–there is no other motivation. They are sick, infantile hypocrites! And really, I’m SICK TO DEATH of all this radical right-wing chest-thumping on abortion. Abortion is a NON-ISSUE! I mean, come on: we’ve got about a billion, trillion real issues facing our country right now, and idiots like Carly Fiorina (who singlehandedly ruined HP!) are out there trying to lick the jackboots of the radical religious right-wingers out there–SHE SHOULD BE ASHAMED. But of course, she’s not! The right-wingers have no shame, they have no morals, they have no compassion, and they have no common sense.The moment that a reasonable writer like Susan Jacoby points out the truth, the fascist SS thought-squads are out there shouting that person down. You right-wingers are EVERYTHING that is wrong in our society, EVERYTHING!

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    Eric:FARNAZ_MANSOURI asks (multiple times):”Do infants and children (I’m setting aside adults for the moment) also have the right to live, and are we obligated to see that they do?”Yes, infants and children (and adults) all have the right to live and we should ensure that right is protected by law.Keep in mind the following, for which, if necessary, I will provide statistics. Women incur far more medical problems giving birth than they do having abortions. Some are serious, some not. Some are life-long. There are thousands, perhaps more, children and adults awaiting kidney transplants necessary for their survival.There are others awaiting compatible bone-marrow donors. Their needs may be ongoing.The same holds true for those in need of rare blood type donors, ongoing.

  • Eric12345

    BUCKMINSTERJ asks:”Please define ‘person’ and explain how it applies to a zygote, embryo, and fetus.”My dictionary defines “person” as “a human being regarded as an individual.” Despite their diminutive size and relative physical differences to you and I, a zygote, an embryo and a fetus are individual human beings with individual genetic makeups. They are distinct life from anyone else.

  • arancia12

    Although I generally support a person’s right to make decisions regarding her/his self, I do not see anything in the U.S. Constitution which guarantees that right. POSTED BY: EDDIENJI disagree completely with you. Firstly, the Constitution grants legal rights to citizens and the 14th Amendment defines who citizens are. Either born on American soil or naturalized. A fetus has not been born therefore it is not a citizen.Secondly, our Declaration of Independence says each person is endowed by their “creator” (not by the Christian God) with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are unalienable rights and the foundation of our country. They cannot be given nor taken away. Therefore, if I chose to abort a fetus that is not a citizen then that is my right. Roe simply expanded on the 4th Amendment which says people have the right to be secure in their persons. Since I am a citizen, and a fetus is part of my body and relies upon me, and is not a citizen with any rights, then I have the right to be secure in my person. My doctor and I have the right to decide what is best for me without your interference. I don’t get to tell you if you can have surgery to remove a cancer. I don’t have the right to know what you, a person secure in your person, discusses with his/her doctor and what the decision is. Ergo, you have no right to know what my doctor and I are discussing and decide upon.Roe actually avoids the subject of when life begins. It skirts it by saying we simply have no right to know what a person and their doctor decide because the 4th Amendment says I am secure in my person. What you “feel” is right or moral has no bearing on my right to decide with my doctor what what to do with my body.

  • arancia12

    BUCKMINSTERJ asks:”Please define ‘person’ and explain how it applies to a zygote, embryo, and fetus.”My dictionary defines “person” as “a human being regarded as an individual.” Despite their diminutive size and relative physical differences to you and I, a zygote, an embryo and a fetus are individual human beings with individual genetic makeups. They are distinct life from anyone else.POSTED BY: ERIC12345 But not all persons have rights under our Constitution. Since a fetus or embryo or zygote is neither born or naturalize, it is not a citizen.

  • Athena4

    “Years ago there was a mom in South Carolina who locked her three kids in a car, put the car in gear, slammed the door, let the car run into a lake and drowned the kids. I guess we could say she just resorted to a form of “abortion” to rid herself of those inconvenient kids?”Actually, she was a Fundamentalist Christian woman who was going through post-partum depression and whose husband refused to get her counseling (or help) because it went against his Christian ethics. That’s not to say that some women are poor mothers. There was one in the news the other day that wanted to give up her 11-year-old because she wanted to go out and party. And the reason we supposedly have more child abuse today is because it’s more reported. People were always abusing their kids, but now there’s more of an awareness of it.

  • PQSully

    “answer to PQSULLY:Well, no. What are the penalties? If abortion truly equal premeditated murder, seems like you’re advocating prison sentences. So Mom goes to prison? For how long? Can Texas decide that abortion is a capital offense and put Mom on death row? What about the doctor? What about the nurse? What about the receptionist who made the appointment or ordered the medical equipment? Was she part of a conspiracy to commit murder?

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    ERIC12345:I replied to your question (see below), and am awaiting your reply. Eric:FARNAZ_MANSOURI asks (multiple times):”Do infants and children (I’m setting aside adults for the moment) also have the right to live, and are we obligated to see that they do?”Yes, infants and children (and adults) all have the right to live and we should ensure that right is protected by law.Keep in mind the following, for which, if necessary, I will provide statistics. Women incur far more medical problems giving birth than they do having abortions. Some are serious, some not. Some are life-long.There are thousands, perhaps more, children and adults awaiting kidney transplants necessary for their survival.There are others awaiting compatible bone-marrow donors. Their needs may be ongoing.The same holds true for those in need of rare blood type donors, ongoing.Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | June 16, 2010 3:22 PM

  • arancia12

    BUCKMINSTERJ asks:”Please define ‘person’ and explain how it applies to a zygote, embryo, and fetus.”My dictionary defines “person” as “a human being regarded as an individual.” Despite their diminutive size and relative physical differences to you and I, a zygote, an embryo and a fetus are individual human beings with individual genetic makeups. They are distinct life from anyone else.POSTED BY: ERIC12345 ____________________Also, a zygote, an embryo, and many fetuses are not individual because they cannot live outside the womb. They are obligate symbiotic at this point.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    Hi GIMPI,Thanks for your reply! Actually, I hadn’t taken the questions as far as you have. See my posts to Eric (below), from whom I’m still awaiting an answer–although all pro-lifers are welcome to reply.

  • Eric12345

    FARNAZ_MANSOURI – On first glance, I’d say no, I would not support mandatory donor registries. Primarily, my objection would be on civil liberties grounds. The government doesn’t have the right to demand and hold on file personal medical information like that.

  • skipsailing28

    just too funnyPQSully got an answer but now has more questions!It seems to me that PQSULLY has had the argumentative rug pulled out from under him (her?) (it?).Gosh, now you want to formulate legislation?it seems to me that if abortion does indeed become illegal there won’t be doctor’s offices making appointments. Sorry for your lack of imagination, but them’s the breaks.

  • Eric12345

    ARANCIA12 – First, I never said a zygote or a fetus is a citizen. Second, which people living the United States don’t have rights under our Constitution?

  • Athena4

    “Here’s your proof of the attitude that got her the position. The Planned Parenthood founder was a racist bigot every bit as bad as any so called “tea bagger.”"Ah, but this was 100 years ago, when lots of other people held those opinions about “colored people” and eugenics. She gave out contraception information because she was tired of seeing poor women (of all colors) dying after giving birth to 15+ children. Way to take things out of context, dude.

  • dotyr

    Will any of the hand-wringing right-to-lifers be willing to support any of the bundles from heaven that that’ll result if they get their way? Anybody? Anyone at all?How about you over there, the guy wearing the frock and the tiara?

  • arancia12

    “Fun fact: Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.”__________________________________-He was also a liberal who argued for separation of church and state. See how often racism and liberalism go together?POSTED BY: LEAFGREEN I would hardly call a man who sold human beings a liberal. That is your label for Jefferson.

  • lucestella18

    @TMA_SIERRAHILLS me·di·a dar·ling (plural me·di·a dar·lings) noun Objectivity? Really? Doesn’t seem like you have any? How about picking up a dictionary for starters….

  • JudyinVA

    What has always amazed me in the pro-life / pro-choice debate is the hypocritical nature of the pro-life mantra that every life is sacred, and the innocent unborn need to be defended. Why does their defense of these innocents stop at birth? Why aren’t the pro-lifers out there championing for adoption of all of the unwanted, abused and abandoned kids WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN BORN? If the pro-lifers followed through on their moralizing stance and worked to protect the children who are already here, then I would have some respect for their position. As it is, the righteous shouting stops with the birth of the infant, when life gets real and complicated. But really, folks — fundamentally it’s all about control, and no pro-lifer wants a woman to be able to decide what to do with her pregnancy, and to deal with it privately. Don’t they have anything better to do?

  • Freestinker

    Here’s an SAT question:Clarence Thomas is to Affirmative Action as Good Luck Peanuts.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    ERIC12345″FARNAZ_MANSOURI – On first glance, I’d say no, I would not support mandatory donor registries. Primarily, my objection would be on civil liberties grounds. The government doesn’t have the right to demand and hold on file personal medical information like that.”Awaiting your reply on the rights of the born, which you said you support. See below:”Do infants and children (I’m setting aside adults for the moment) also have the right to live, and are we obligated to see that they do?”Yes, infants and children (and adults) all have the right to live and we should ensure that right is protected by law.Keep in mind the following, for which, if necessary, I will provide statistics. Women incur far more medical problems giving birth than they do having abortions. Some are serious, some not. Some are life-long.There are thousands, perhaps more, children and adults awaiting kidney transplants necessary for their survival.There are others awaiting compatible bone-marrow donors. Their needs may be ongoing.The same holds true for those in need of rare blood type donors, ongoing.Awaiting your reply.

  • rgv1129

    eric12345 wroteEric, you seem to be conflating government with society. Do you also conflate natural law and man’s law?The question about male donor status appears to be, if somewhat hyperbolic, and extension of the logic that says that women should have to undergo the rigors and peril of pregnancy because they can. Men, irrespective of age, could certainly go through similar rigors and perils in the interest of guaranteeing all life, could they not?

  • skipsailing28

    in response to this:First, no liberal screed would be complete without an egregious insult aimed at those who disagree with the liberal agenda. The author quoted above obeys this unwritten rule to her (his?) (its?) shame.Complexity indeed.Those of us who believe that abortion is wrong also believe in personal responsibility. While some of these questions are interesting mostly the boil down to this: if you cannot afford children then work hard to avoid having them.next, I believe in life. I don’t believe in promising anyone a life sans challenges.Next, why do liberals insist that the irresponsible behavior of some in our society mandates a raid on the treasury? This is the essence of that foggy notion we call liberalism: taking money from responsible people and giving it to irresponsible people. Are children born in different geographic locations of equal value: yes. will they experience the same style of life? no. that’s why we should take the sage advice of George Bernard Shaw: Take care to be born well.

  • Freestinker

    JudyinVA wrote:============Because it’s much easier to be holier-than-thou without doing squat to prove it.

  • Eric12345

    JUDYINVA – You wrote that “fundamentally it’s all about control”Why do you think this? If it wasn’t about the life of the child, why would pro-lifer’s want to control what a person does with her pregnancy?

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    rgv1129The question about male donor status appears to be, if somewhat hyperbolic, and extension of the logic that says that women should have to undergo the rigors and peril of pregnancy because they can. Men, irrespective of age, could certainly go through similar rigors and perils in the interest of guaranteeing all life, could they not?Either one commits as absolutely to the rights of the born as to those of the unborn OR one does not.Eric has said that he does.

  • rohit57

    Susan J says “Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, liberated from right-wing Republicanism and now running for the Senate from Florida as an independent, vetoed a terrible bill requiring all women (unless they could prove they were victims of rape or incest) to pay for a sonogram before obtaining an abortion.”It is one thing for pro-choicers to insist on choice. It is quite different to insist on BLIND choice.Susan, are you totally devoid of morality?Atheists do not HAVE to be immoral you know, it is quite possible to be an atheist and pro-life. In fact as a Buddhist I am one.Try and take morality a bit seriously. When you kill, then it isn’t all about YOU.

  • PSolus

    “Why do you think this? If it wasn’t about the life of the child, why would pro-lifer’s want to control what a person does with her pregnancy?”You tell us.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    skipsailing28:Re: Your recent postGiven your position and given that healthy boys and men can survive with one kidney, be on-call lifelong (with all medical precautions taken) for bone-marrow and blood donations, and given that the dangers of the foregoing are less than those of pregnancy and delivery, would you then support all boys and men registering as multiple donors until they reach, say, sixty?We’ve passed the registration “issue” so please answer the questions.

  • mandrake

    I stand by my earlier statement that conservative politicians need to clarify their position on the role of government in the private matters of people’s medical and sex lives. While ERIC12345 may claim that, “of course pro-lifers think there’s such a thing as personal privacy from government”, EDDIENJ only a few hours later makes an (erroneous) statement that the idea of personal privacy is erroneous and arises from the Roe v. Wade decision. It of course does not come from the Roe decision, it comes from the earlier case I cited, Griswold vs. Connecticut that determined that the Constitution does in fact ensure that Americans have a right to privacy against government intrusion. This idea that most Americans would probably agree is a Constitutional idea is what conservatives like EDDIENJ complain are overreaching interpretations of the Constitution. The fact is that many conservatives have complained at length about the Griswold privacy decision as judicial activism that overturned legislative law. It’s not a radical fringe that believes this but a mainstream part of conservatism that does not believe that Americans have this right to privacy protected by the Constitution. Cato and Heritage Foundation both rail against the decision deriding the idea that the Constitution bestows Americans with rights to privacy. There is no way to separate out the abortion issue and personal privacy and government intrusion into people’s personal lives. The question is completely relevant to pose to these anti-feminist politicians: Do you believe that the Constitution gives Americans a right to privacy against government intrusion including medical and birth control decisions? It’s pretty simple. Just ask this questions journalists.

  • Eric12345

    RGV112 – I’m not sure what you mean by conflating government and society. I assumed that when I was asked whether men should be required to register that it would be the government that would be requiring them to do so. I’m not sure how a requirement could be enforced without the government. Is there another way?Of course men COULD go through with registering as a donor, but I don’t think they (or women) should be forced to against their will. No one should be allowed to actively end a life, but no one should be forced to actively save one either. I don’t think the government should have this power.

  • jb777

    Dear Susan Jacoby,

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    ROHIT:Still awaiting your reply:Given your position and given that healthy boys and men can survive with one kidney, be on-call lifelong (with all medical precautions taken) for bone-marrow and blood donations, and given that the dangers of the foregoing are less than those of pregnancy and delivery, would you then support all boys and men registering as multiple donors until they reach, say, sixty?Btw., we’ve passed the registration “issue,” so please answer the questions. If you prefer not to, that’s okay, too, but that decision would, of course, be suggestive, would it not?

  • rohit57

    It does seem a bit odd for American women to kill their own babies and for America to then import people from Mexico. Of course that is not anyone’s policy, but that is indeed what is happening.The number of potential Americans killed since Roe v Wade (around 40 million) is several times greater than the number of illegal immigrants in America.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    JIHADIST:Good grief, is that you–the original? The one and only?Is it possible? I’ve been thinking about you the last couple of days–that is, if it’s you.

  • Eric12345

    FARNAZ_MANSOURI – The government does not have access to my health information through my health insurance company. That information is private.

  • staterighter

    I support a woman’s right to make her own decisions as long as she understands the consequences, to both her and anyone else involved. I have a question for Ms. Jacoby, maybe two. When does the baby become a human with all the rights granted by the Constitution which includes life? Why isn’t the father included in the discussion or decision? I know that if he were dragged into court for support the law would surely demand that he provide the necessary monetary needs? So why doesn’t the law force the man to become involved? If our brillent Congress would simply pass a law stating that the babe became an American Citizen with all the rights at such and such time it would resolve the entire issue. The woman could abort before that time and could not after unless she and her doctor wanted to be charged with murder? The point…it is much more complicated than you make it. Abortion is not an easy issue for intelligent people to come to grips with, religious or not. Even you, an enlightened atheist, should be intelligent enough to realize that taking a life, and the baby is a life, requires a great deal of thought. But then maybe since you have a wonderful life facing no consequences in an afterlife you do not have to think about it…the ten commandments do not matter to you.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    ERIC12345:FARNAZ_MANSOURI – The government does not have access to my health information through my health insurance company. That information is private.Posted by: Eric12345You either give as much priority to the lives of the born as to the unborn or you do not.HOwever, for the sake of (non)argument, let us hypothesize that the “government” would not have access to your records, that only those in charge of overseeing donations would. If you don’t want to answer the questions in good faith, that, of course, is your right. However, your declining would continue to be suggestive, of course.Awaiting your reply to the questions posed.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    JIHADIST:YOu don’t have to say if it’s you, but if it is, keep blogging. Even if it isn’t, keep blogging.Bur, if it is, welcome back!!! Long time!!

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    JIHADIST:Reread your post, and think it is you.CHEERS to you too.Welcome back!Farnaz

  • arancia12

    It does seem a bit odd for American women to kill their own babies and for America to then import people from Mexico. Of course that is not anyone’s policy, but that is indeed what is happening.The number of potential Americans killed since Roe v Wade (around 40 million) is several times greater than the number of illegal immigrants in America.POSTED BY: ROHIT57 ______________The key word is “potential.” Judging from the actual Americans we have today, we would still have to import people from Mexico because entitled Americans won’t do the work for the pay they do. So we would simply have 40 million more people here if all those “potential” Americans were born.I wonder how many would be raised by women who didn’t want them, by fathers who abandoned them, or by parents who abused them? It’s amazing to me that you conservatives want to punish the outcome but not the cause.If good old American businesses didn’t hire imported people we wouldn’t have such an immigration problem. If we would provide free birth control we might reduce the number of abortions.

  • arancia12

    I support a woman’s right to make her own decisions as long as she understands the consequences, to both her and anyone else involved. I have a question for Ms. Jacoby, maybe two. When does the baby become a human with all the rights granted by the Constitution which includes life? POSTED BY: STATERIGHTER ______________Why are some posters so obtuse??A fetus (not a baby until born) is a citizen when it BORN on American soil or naturalized.Read the bloody Constitution!

  • Eric12345

    FARNAZ_MANSOURI2 – I don’t know what health insurance company you deal with, but mine is not allowed to give out my information to anyone, including the government.But let’s assume in your hypothetical world that the government could force us to register as a donor but that the information would remain in some vault somewhere, I’d still oppose this because, as I said to another commenter, I don’t think anyone should be forced to do this against their will. No one should be allowed to actively end a life, but no one should be forced to actively save one either. I don’t think the government should have this power.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    ATHENA, COLInNICHOLAS, ONOFRIO, SCHAUM (please come home), ET AL:JIHADIST is back.Sorry for the digression. Last one.

  • buckminsterj

    Eric12345,Thanks for your response. Leaving aside Arancia’s well-founded doubts about the individual nature of zygotes et. al., you’ve concluded, using the lexical definition of “person,” that zygotes are persons because they have individual genetic make-ups, yes? I think that’s true of all organisms, so I’ll assume you meant that zygotes are genetically human – is that right? If so, do you believe that personhood refers merely to our genes? Does the word “person,” in other word, primarily evoke for you considerations of genetic structure? Sorry to lead you down another extended line of questioning, since I see you’re already engaged with a couple others. I’m off for awhile but will check back tonight, if you respond . . .

  • mandrake

    @staterighter: You don’t need to ask Susan Jacoby when a “baby becomes a human with all the rights granted by the Constitution”. The Constitution itself states that citizenship and all rights related are bestowed upon birth to American citizen parents or on US soil. Fortunately for us, the Founding Fathers decided this already so that all arguments since are moot and we don’t have to worry about grappling with any difficult issues. You don’t have rights before your born any more than before you are conceived. We could bestoe rights on the pre-born but this will mean two things: a departure from the Constitution and giving citizenship to children who are conceived on US soil.

  • arancia12

    ARANCIA12 – First, I never said a zygote or a fetus is a citizen. Second, which people living the United States don’t have rights under our Constitution?POSTED BY: ERIC12345 | ____________If you are not a citizen of the US you are not guaranteed rights under the Constitution. You can be deported rather than tried. We do it to illegals every day.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    ERIC12345But let’s assume in your hypothetical world that the government could force us to register as a donor but that the information would remain in some vault somewhere, I’d still oppose this because, as I said to another commenter, I don’t think anyone should be forced to do this against their will. No one should be allowed to actively end a life, but no one should be forced to actively save one either. I don’t think the government should have this power.Posted by: Eric12345 So, then, you are in favor of passive murder of living, breathing human beings.That, in effect, is what you have said, and it is bitterly disappointing. I keep hoping that their is something, anything rational in the pro-zygote brain.

  • sux123

    “So why doesn’t the law force the man to become involved? If our brillent Congress would simply pass a law stating that the babe became an American Citizen with all the rights at such and such time it would resolve the entire issue”

  • lcarter0311

    Oh please!When will Right-Wing Republican women STOP “politicizing” my reproductive organs and millions of other women around the world. These are my organs and I will do with them what I please.Right-Wing Republicans are nothing but a bunch of political hacks. When these Right-Wing political hacks start showing greater concern and compassion for the environment, wildlife, and ocean life and the well being people’s lives in general, then maybe I will be able to take these people more seriously. But, right now, they are a joke and a bunch of shysters.

  • foxydude2003

    Firstly I would like to point out that I’m pro-choice and there is a reason for that. I do not feel the government should be meddling in an issue that is a clear cut between religious and social values. I also feel that females have a right to control their bodies, we fought so long to give females equal rights. I just feel it would be hypocritical to for anyone to say woman have equal rights, but they have no choice about what goes on in their uterus.

  • Eric12345

    ARANCIA12 – Are Constitutional right limited to American citizens or do they apply to everyone physically in the country?

  • skipsailing28

    This from Jacoby is just stupid:So what does this mean, actually? It seems that ms Jacoby has found something else about which to be bitter. Imagine these women having the unmitigated gall to disagree with every aspect of the feminist agenda. What the heck kind of sistahs are these?Does Ms Jacoby believe that every woman born in America after some date certain owes the feminists a debt that can only be repaid by strict adherence to her dictates?As I read the essays of the folks the WaPo actually PAYS I wonder just exactly how these folks duped the HR department into hiring them.

  • Sanglant25

    So… at the moment of conception, are women just human incubators?

  • gimpi

    Skipsailing,Again you’re offended, and again I don’t understand why. I only stated that a desire for simple answers was a general trend I had observed, nothing else. However, I feel in your comments, you displayed it. Your For instance, I assume you know someone can be poor without being irresponsible? You are aware that in the states, illness in the family is one of the the biggest factor in poverty, correct? You know that, world, wide, war is a huge factor in poverty, right? You are aware that you women can From the outside, it looks like those factors are complications in the I felt Farnaz_mansouri raised a good question, and I tried to answer it, from what I had observed around me. I was civil. I acknowledged a generality when I needed to use it. I was careful to not be insulting. I honestly don’t understand why you seem to feel you are being attacked. I stand by my opinion that you are a bit oversensitive about your beliefs.

  • sux123

    And why exactly is it a “terrible bill”? Killing someone (something) whose face you are not willing to see is no different from dropping a bomb from an airplane on innocent civilians whom you do not know and never will know.

  • Eric12345

    FARNAZ_MANSOURI2 – I don’t care for your tone or your language. I’m trying to have a mature discussion with you and answering your questions honestly and you’re engaging in school yard name calling. I’m more disappointed than you.What we’re talking about here is what our law should be, not what action we think individuals should take. If I had marrow or something else that someone needed to survive I’d gladly donate it. But I wouldn’t force someone else to do so. There’s a difference. Can you see it?Would you support a law requiring mandatory donor registration?

  • JohnGaltIsHere

    To buckminsterj: You say – “Yup, that’s abortion – and so many other unpleasant but acceptable and necessary human practices. Do you eat meat? Do you take antibiotics when you’re sick? Do you furnish your home with wood tables, chairs, etc.? What are your thoughts on the killing of, for example, Nazi soldiers during WWII?Wow. This is human life we’re talking about and not a human life that has murdered a race or killed another person etc. I personally could care less about the arguments about when is an embryo a “person” and the Supreme Court’s view of when abortion is permissible. All of that mumbo jumbo aside, there is zero doubt that human life is being snuffed out to suit the mother. To compare a human life – as you do – with cattle, a tree or bacteria is preposterous and disturbing. If that is how you truly feel, then you are twisted person.

  • sux123

    ANY AND ALL PRO-LIFERS:

  • rohit57

    That, in effect, is what you have said, and it is bitterly disappointing. I keep hoping that their is something, anything rational in the pro-zygote brain.In the first place, not every foetus is a zygote. US law currently permits abortions up to SIX months and a six month old foetus is very very far from being a “zygote”. Here is a definition:Zygote: The cell formed by the union of a male sex cell (a sperm) and a female sex cell (an ovum). The zygote develops into the embryo following the instruction encoded in its genetic material, the DNA. As you can see, the word zygote only refers to the extremely early stages of pregnancy. By using the term “pro-zygote” to describe pro-lifers you are revealing a prejudice. It is no different from a pejorative term used for blacks or Jews or whoever. But the foetus is quite well developed later on, and there is now evidence that the foetus/baby learns some of its mother’s language even before being born.I personally do not object to a day after pill, which is the method which would destroy a zygote. But to kill a six month old foetus, quite legal under current US law, is little different from legalized murder. It is legal – so what? It is legal in some Muslim countries to stone an adulterous woman to death. Does that mean “OK”?

  • Eric12345

    BUCKMINSTERJ – It’s not a problem. Yes, I did mean individually genetically human.Genes aren’t the some total of our personhood, but they are significant. Fundamentally, they’re what differentiates me from you and a zygote from it’s mother.

  • CAC2

    I am SO TIRED of my reproductive system being used as political fodder. I’m happy that these women formed personal viewpoints concerning the morality of abortion. Everyone has a right to their own opinions. They can choose to integrate these viewpoints into their own lives, but NOT MY LIFE!!!!!!!!!

  • rohit57

    And why exactly is it a “terrible bill”? Killing someone (something) whose face you are not willing to see is no different from dropping a bomb from an airplane on innocent civilians whom you do not know and never will know.Let me answer that question by another. Do you think that someone who drops a bomb from an airplane does not know what people look like? Of course they do. But knowing what people look like is quite different from coming to actually face what you are doing when you drop a bomb.And there is little doubt that people know far less about what a foetus looks like at various stages of pregnancy than they know about what their friends and relatives look like. Most people know less about a foetus than they know about people walking around.Did Lyndon Johnson not know what a dead tree looked like? Surely he did. But he did not come face to face with what he was doing when he defoliated the forests of Vietnam.I think a woman who wants an abortion SHOULD come face to face with exactly WHAT she is killing.

  • buckminsterj

    Nope, JohnG – your objection is unsubstantiated babble. You have failed to establish that “this is human life we’re talking about.” We may simply be talking about embryonic life. If you disagree, please explain why. Simply proclaiming that a fetus is a person does not make it so.

  • buckminsterj

    Thanks, Eric. On my way home, but I’ll get back to you . . .

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    Would you support a law requiring mandatory donor registration?Posted by: Eric12345I do not think you are interested in having a good-faith discussion, or, at least, you have not so evidenced.However, your answers suggest at minimum that what you are supporting is government-sponsored passive murder. I think you place more value on a zygote that may become a fetus that may or may not be delivered as an event–more on the foregoing than you do on living infants, children, and adults.

  • Secular

    skipsailing28, so you find my rant quite offensive eh. You guys have the gall to demand that we respect every hair brained notions you theists believe in. We are subjected to an onslaught of theistic piety day in and day out without any regard. You have no compunctions in letting us know that we are eternally condemned for not being as credulous as you guys are. For instance this president gives a speech for the first time in 16 months and has audacity to tell us that he is seeking that mythical gray haired guy up in the sky. Invokes “god bless america” nonsense. Why is it that you invoke your deities constantly to make your sporting team victorious or the other team to loose, etc, etc. We are inundated with this utter nonsense day in day out. You are offended when i am curt with my characterization of your inane concept of soul. Unless you have established that there is even the remote probability that there is a supernatural being, don’t demand that we respect your beliefs.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    ROHIT:I personally do not object to a day after pill, which is the method which would destroy a zygote. But to kill a six month old foetus, quite legal under current US law, is little different from legalized murder.It is legal – so what? It is legal in some Muslim countries to stone an adulterous woman to death. Does that mean “OK”?Posted by: rohit57HOwever–Are you saying that you do not object to removal of a “zygote” as you define it?

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    Would you support a law requiring mandatory donor registration?Posted by: Eric12345

  • gimpi

    Eric12345,I think the “kidney donor” suggestion Farnaz_mansouri is offering is to try to place the same demands on men that she feels outlawing abortion might place on women. For instance, how would you know if a woman had aborted a pregnancy? With the drugs available today, the only way to be sure would be to require monthly pregnancy-testing of all fertile women, and then demand either proof of a natural miscarriage or a birth when a pregnancy was reported. That would be a gross invasion of privacy, but it would be the only real way to prevent abortions. China did a similar thing, to enforce their “one child” policy, and most of the world regarded it as a gross abuse of human rights.I think her question is if women can have their medical privacy invaded, and be required to make sacrifices, endure pain and accept risks to their health and lives in the service of life, can men be required to to make the same sort of sacrifices?

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    GIMPI:”I think her question is if women can have their medical privacy invaded, and be required to make sacrifices, endure pain and accept risks to their health and lives in the service of life, can men be required to to make the same sort of sacrifices?”Yes, that is basically it. I am also concerned about the lives of the born, at risk.

  • irae

    “Republican/Tea Party”In the interest of truth in journalism, I sincerely hope this construction catches on.

  • mandrake

    rohit57 says:

  • arancia12

    ARANCIA12 – Are Constitutional right limited to American citizens or do they apply to everyone physically in the country?POSTED BY: ERIC12345 |Eric, there are natural rights as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.Then there are Constitutional rights accorded to citizens of the United States. Non-citizens are protected under the Constitution but do not have all the rights of citizens, for instance, they cannot vote. However, a fetus is neither a citizen, a non-citizen, or a person. You are obviously attempting to lay a trap. Why not just be honest and get to the point? Or is dishonesty the hallmark of a conservative?

  • dorsyn

    Nota Bene: that because of her infertility, Fiorina has neer been presented with the gut-wrenching decision that many women do and that Palin considered aborting her downs syndrome child but opted not to- as millions of women also do because they have determined that they have the personal fortitude and the financial wherewithall to raise a disabled child. But what of those women who don’t have the necessary personal fortitude, the money or the family support to do so? What then are the opportunities for these children? What is the likelihood that these children will be adopted by a loving family versus spending their lives in an institutional environment? This is a matter for each woman to make according to her conscience and her circumstances.

  • tjs_dc

    “Down syndrome Child” – whether you agree with Sarah Palin or not (I rarely do) that is an old and offensive way to reference any child with Down syndrome. “A child with Down syndrome” or “her son who has Down Syndrome” would be much more appropriate. No one should be defined by their disability and all people who are disabled are people first.

  • pgibson1

    I see the problem.women think they own the babies, since they incubated them in your bodies.sure, you can have them, sure they’re yours.now, how did you get preggo IN THE FIRST PLACE?It would seem that to today’s woman, any old toad will do the trick. Heck, a sperm bank will do the job for you.but let’s not forget where that precious sperm came from, okay?it came out of a man.as in – not yours.the sooner you feel like sharing, ladies, the better.as it is, palins and “rights” people are trampling all over the reproductive rights of men – as if we have none.I assure you we do.Try getting preggo without sperm.That’s really all that needs be said.

  • rgv1129

    johngalt:Why do this comparison make them a “twisted person”? Are you assuming that your viewpoint is unique in its correctness? Also, I believe it would be more accurate to ask if that is what they truly thought, not feel.

  • skipsailing28

    in response to:So you have a right be rude and you’re excersizing it? How nice for you.The America left has an interesting process. It determines who are the “protected people” and who are not. So if one is a mass murdering Islamist madman in the custody of the US, one may rest assured that the liberals will fight hard to insure that every hair brained aspect of one’s life is respected and protected.However if one is simply a christian who stands for one’s faith, then there is no “protection” and liberals are free to be as rude as they chose. This is the part of the PC speech codes that remain unwritten.In addition, the much vaunted liberal tolerance is in reality no where to be seen. Liberals, as this person clearly demonstrates, have no tolerance for anything that varies from their dogma. How sad.so if you feel the need to be rude because you saw a bumper sticker that says “god bless America” by all means knock yourself out. My response:

  • Secular

    Another ironic argument put forth by the pro-lifers is we should not punish the woman, who gets abortion. Lets throw the physician who performs the procedure in the cell and throw away the key. This so dumb. For some magical reason the pregnant woman bec0mes a victim for letting the doctor abort her fetus. What about the pond scum who impregnated her, or herself.Then these real pious folk are prepared to make an exception for Rape & Incest. Is their belief, pregnancy due to a rape and incest do not posses souls? Do the children of these soulless people have souls? Did Moabites have a soul? Skipsailing what are your thoughts on this subject?

  • skipsailing28

    in response to:yes, you are right. You were as civil as I’ve seen here lately. Accept my apologies for my rash choice of words.No actually I don’t know that in the States illness is a major factor in poverty. perhaps you could provide a link to a definitive study that would support this contention.When I say irresponsible I mean this: producing children that we cannot sustain by our own means is irresponsible. I see this every day in my town. Absent massive government transfer programs these teen aged children with their new borns would be in a tough spot. but because the tax payer funded spigot is open, well we’re being rewarded with an deadly rise in the children born to single moms. This is a sure way to stay poor as Bill Cosby and Juan Williams have both pointed out.

  • arancia12

    So what does this mean, actually? It seems that ms Jacoby has found something else about which to be bitter. Imagine these women having the unmitigated gall to disagree with every aspect of the feminist agenda. What the heck kind of sistahs are these?Does Ms Jacoby believe that every woman born in America after some date certain owes the feminists a debt that can only be repaid by strict adherence to her dictates?As I read the essays of the folks the WaPo actually PAYS I wonder just exactly how these folks duped the HR department into hiring them.POSTED BY: SKIPSAILING28How utterly ridiculous. Every woman does not have to agree with the feminist “agenda.” If a woman does not want an abortion, don’t have one. If she wishes to encourage or petition other women not to have abortions, then do so.But to try and take away a fundamental right of authority over my own body is unforgivable. Mrs. Palin fails to recognize that she had a choice and she made her own choice. No real feminist faults her or disparages her for it. She had the means to support a disabled child. The difference between feminist pro-choicers, and you steadfastly ignore this, and anti-choicers, is that pro-choice persons will not force others to have an abortion. Anti-choices will force women to bear a child. Doesn’t matter how dangerous or how deformed. You want to make that choice for a woman.That, sir, is a fact and your post is patently foolish.

  • jb1151

    No, no, no, Susan!Sarah Palin has never said, “Look at me, I had a mentally disabled child and anyone who would have aborted is bad, bad, bad!”She has actually spoken very candidly about how she considered having an abortion.I am about as liberal as you can get. I disagree with Palin on every subject imaginable, and I would not vote for her for dog catcher. Just so we’re clear.

  • Secular

    Skipsaili28, i was not saying that I was being rude. I do find the the concept of souls nonsensical. Would you rather preferred me to say that concept of souls is irrational or devoid of basis in fact. In fact I have clearly demonstrated to all how nonsensical it is by citing the case of Chimeras. Instead of putting forth arguments for your position, you chose to chastise me for what you consider as a choice of inopportune words as offensive. It is only when a religious concept is ridiculed that the whole world breaks down. In public discourse I do not encounter this kind of demand for respect for any other hair brained concepts, except the religious ones. If I was characterize a change in the major league base ball rule change (for instance) as nonsensical, there wouldn’t be any hue and cry. But should I say anything about a religious construct, lo and behold the Thor’s lightning will strike you down. Next coming to your protestations about liberals objection to government’s treatment of criminals, it is a non-sequiter. Indeed goevrnment cannot do in our names (that’s exactly what it means when government does anything) tortures people that is unacceptable. However, your critiques and castigations of a criminal or anyone else is perfectly allright. You are not doing in our names, but doing in your name, your name alone. See the difference.Besides I was not trying to be pffensive, I was trying to raise the theists’ consciousness.

  • potomacfever00

    here’s a concept: how about EVERYBODY minds their own effin’ business?and let’s stop equating the term “pro choice” with the term “pro abortion.”NOBODY is “pro-abortion.” i can’t think of a single instance in which a woman has arranged to have this unfortunate procedure performed in a celebratory state of mind.it is not for me — or anyone else — to judge how another person comes to what must be a very painful decision.so everyone should just STFU and mind their own business.

  • reginleif

    Note all the gendered insults flying around. “Bitter,” “screeching,” “hysterical.” It sure does bug the wingnuts when a woman refuses to bow down before the trinity of Kinder, Kirche, Küche. Or, to put it in a way they’d understand it, Baybeez, Gaawwwwd , and Servin’ Yer Maayunnnn like a Good Li’l Helpmeet.

  • Eric12345

    farnaz_mansouri2 – So what kind of penalty would you impose on someone who refused to register? Would they be prosecuted as a criminal?

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    skipsailing28:You were the first person to whom I posted. While ignoring my posts is not uncivil, it’s not civil either. I mention this since civility is an expressed concern of yours.Of course, you need not reply. However, if you do not, your silence would be suggestive–needless to say. Here is my second direct posting to you.Re: Your recent postGiven your position and given that healthy boys and men can survive with one kidney, be on-call lifelong (with all medical precautions taken) for bone-marrow and blood donations, and given that the dangers of the foregoing are less than those of pregnancy and delivery, would you then support all boys and men registering as multiple donors until they reach, say, sixty?We’ve passed the registration “issue” so please answer the questions.Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | June 16, 2010 3:53 PM

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    ERIC12345:farnaz_mansouri2 – So what kind of penalty would you impose on someone who refused to register? Would they be prosecuted as a criminal?Posted by: Eric12345However, your answers suggest at minimum that what you are supporting is government-sponsored passive murder. I think you place more value on a zygote that may become a fetus that may or may not be delivered as an event–more on the foregoing than you do on living infants, children, and adults.Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | June 16, 2010 4:45 PM

  • readerny

    Remember this is all rhetoric. The rhetoric does not match the reality of these women’s lives. Fiorina claims not to be able to have children. Really? How do we know? My guess is that she postponed having children and then at 45 or 46 gave it a shot. In any case, she insults the rest of us, whether we have children or not. I really wish the “pro-life” women would open a discussion of how to make life better for mothers and children. How about better policy on the national level? How about better childcare?

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    skipsailing28:I can only assume that you are unable to reply to my multiple postings, suggesting serious weaknesses in your pro-life arguments.I shall not bother you again, since everything else you post rests on shaky foundations.Farnaz

  • Rozinante2

    Why are we still battling this? Women have always been able to terminate pregnancies, law or no law. Go by any cemetary more than about 50 years old, and I gauranteee that at least one stone sits over the body of a woman who could niether bear the shame of an unwanted pregnancy nor find a way to end it without ending her own life. Do you want that back?Public piety and intrusive morality is little more than vanity and cruelty, which sucks the joy out of life. It offers the illusion of righteousness but it leaves people barren and joyless.Inflict it on someone else.

  • buckminsterj

    Eric: “Genes aren’t the some total of our personhood.”Yes, few would disagree; in fact, as you’ve probably guessed, my definition of personhood accounts for genetics only in the most abstract sense, i.e. “Hey, that organism there appears to be homo sapiens.” But zygotes, embryos, and (to an admittedly lesser extent) fetuses fail to elicit that response because those genes have yet to manifest the characteristics we actually (and rightly) define as human: emotional and intellectual capacity, familial and social relations, self-consciousness, etc. Based on what I know of cerebral development, zygotes and embryos don’t have these characteristics; fetuses may (I don’t think the issue is settled) develop enough capacity for, say, thought and emotion to warrant serious concern about late-term abortions. But even then, calling it a “person” or “baby” unfairly confers an identity and ability to suffer it has not yet attained.“Fundamentally, they’re what differentiates me from you”Actually, I’d say our genes, which within our species vary only slightly, fundamentally unite us, while our experiences, relationships, etc. are what differentiate us, what make us individuals. So to label zygotes – which do not have thoughts, experiences, or relationships in the human sense – “persons” or “babies” is unhelpful to a discussion of abortion.

  • ShorinBJ

    Such acrimonious posting. I will say here that I do believe a fetus is a life. More than that, I believe it to be a person. I value its life, and will not have sex with a woman without the understanding that any child conceived thereof would not be aborted.Much as I would like for all these unborn children to live, I’m too afraid of turning such power over to the government, the power over women’s bodies.And frankly, what do I understand about what’s going through a woman’s mind when she’s making that unhappy decision? Who am I to say what burdens she should take on for the sake of the life she carries? It seems the height of arrogance to say what I would do in her place, and that she should do the same.This, by the way, is one reason why I’m in favor of universal health care. Abortion rates are lower in every single country that has universal health care. Including much less religious countries like France and England. Food for thought.

  • 65apr

    Susan you might be The Spirited Atheist, but you should be titled Stupidest Idi0t. Face it you are a sour kunnnt who hates the american way. Your drivel is the most vile of a most vile psycholigical defective POS liberal parasite we have seen. Your writings provide good fecal material to attract the lowest forms of liberal infestation. You are the definition of nausea inducing.

  • Eric12345

    FARNAZ_MANSOURI2 – First off, you’re wrong about wanting a good faith discussion. I’m not the one who resorted to phrases like “zygote lover brain” or whatever you said. If you want a good faith discussion, stay away from language like that.Second, I did address your comment about sponsoring passive government murder. I addressed it by saying earlier:”What we’re talking about here is what our law should be, not what action we think individuals should take. If I had marrow or something else that someone needed to survive I’d gladly donate it. But I wouldn’t force someone else to do so. There’s a difference. Can you see it?”But if that’s what you think I’m supporting, I don’t think I can dissuade you. And, if that’s what I’m supporting, then that’s what we all support because I don’t know anyone who’s advocating mandatory donor registries. How much time do you devote to advocating for that? Do you advocate it anywhere other than blog postings dealing with abortion?So, what would be the penalty for not registering? Criminal prosecution? A fine? These are serious questions.

  • rohit57

    Such acrimonious posting. I will say here that I do believe a fetus is a life. More than that, I believe it to be a person. I value its life, and will not have sex with a woman without the understanding that any child conceived thereof would not be aborted.Posted by: ShorinBJ |I assume that you see that such an argument is fake and that is because when A is harming B, government MUST step in.When a woman wants to kill the life within her body, let her justify it. Perhaps she is desparate, perhaps she was raped. That one can understand.But the idea that a woman may kill for ANY reason, or for no reason, and we are not allowed to second guess her, that treats a human life as being of far too little value.So if you say that the life of the foetus HAS value, you have to bite the bullet and admit that then you must actively oppose SOME abortions as unnecessary and cruel.

  • analyst72

    Female soldiers?

  • jadada

    Wow, Fiorina went from pro-choice to pro-life in less than two years. Maybe her husband was a total loser in 2008, and she thought he should have been aborted, and then the got is ass in gear and now Fiorina realizes abortion is just terrible.

  • leilaash

    Best column by Susan Jacoby I’ve ever read. Good work.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    ERICI don’t understand this. “What we’re talking about here is what our law should be, not what action we think individuals should take. If I had marrow or something else that someone needed to survive I’d gladly donate it. But I wouldn’t force someone else to do so. There’s a difference. Can you see it?”So, are you then saying that the decision on whether to have an abortion is up to the woman? Are you saying that she may not be legally forced, either way?Please clarify.

  • joneu316

    Ms Jacoby and the other secularists, who have no moral basis even to call Mengele-ish evils “wrong,” are complaining about women who have the audacity to care about the child in the womb and, in retaliation, issue silly warnings about religion-inspired, no, worse, Bible-inspired, government intrusions into their sacred private lives. How dare those pro-life women care about anyone but themselves, and save a few of the millions being aborted. What is it about a few more kids living that bothers Susan?

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    ROHIT:I personally do not object to a day after pill, which is the method which would destroy a zygote. But to kill a six month old foetus, quite legal under current US law, is little different from legalized murder.It is legal – so what? It is legal in some Muslim countries to stone an adulterous woman to death. Does that mean “OK”?Posted by: rohit57HOwever–Are you saying that you do not object to removal of a “zygote” as you define it?

  • rohit57

    Why are we still battling this? Women have always been able to terminate pregnancies, law or no law. Go by any cemetary more than about 50 years old, and I gauranteee that at least one stone sits over the body of a woman who could niether bear the shame of an unwanted pregnancy nor find a way to end it without ending her own life. Do you want that back?Posted by: Rozinante2 |The fact that a law is broken is not an argument for not having it.But if you say that any law against abortion must not do more harm than it does good, then I am with you. And that is why I believe that there should only be relatively light penalties for abortions.The penalty should not be so heavy that it forces women into desparate measures. But it should have enough bite that people decide to use contraception rather than use abortion as the cheap way out.

  • sportbri

    ARANCIA12If natural rights include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” abortion is the ultimate violation of human rights. It denies all three.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    ROHIT:Can you answer my question on zygotes vs. fetuses? If you will, I’ll address the birth control matter.

  • rohit57

    ROHIT:Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 I believe that even the killing of a zygote is wrong, but it is a mistake to try to make day after pills illegal for that reason.We live in an age of great sexual promiscuity and accidents are bound to happen. All we can reasonably ask a woman in that case is, “Act fast, before there is a developed foetus whose killing will be cruel and inhuman.”

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    ROHIT:I believe that even the killing of a zygote is wrong, but it is a mistake to try to make day after pills illegal for that reason.We live in an age of great sexual promiscuity and accidents are bound to happen. All we can reasonably ask a woman in that case is, “Act fast, before there is a developed foetus whose killing will be cruel and inhuman.”Am I correct?

  • buckminsterj

    ROHIT57,“I assume that you see that such an argument is fake and that is because when A is harming B, government MUST step in.” Not if A = person and B = houseplant (or thousands of other possibilities)“But the idea that a woman may kill for ANY reason, or for no reason, and we are not allowed to second guess her, that treats a human life as being of far too little value.”Again, as I’ve been arguing, it depends on what is being killed. The “zygote/embryo/fetus = human life” equation has yet to be convincingly demonstrated. You are, however, perfectly within your rights to second guess a woman who chooses to have an abortion – I, for example, second guess people who eat meat – but it’s poor policy to legally deny the choice.“So if you say that the life of the foetus HAS value, you have to bite the bullet and admit that then you must actively oppose SOME abortions as unnecessary and cruel.”True, but as you seem to acknowledge in your other posts, opposing abortion is not the same as outlawing it. And keep in mind that denying a woman an abortion can be even more unnecessary and cruel.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    ROHIT:ADDENDUM to previous post:OR, are you saying that it should be illegal to remove a zygote?

  • sportbri

    The left has no choice but to deny the humanity of the aborted.Just as the Nazis denied the humanity of the jews.Otherwise, abortion could not be justified.

  • sportbri

    FARNAZ_MANSOURI2Then do it, defend the right to end a human life at will.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    Okay.We are assuming an unwanted pregnancy. A woman has in her body another human she did not invite in.Okay, so far?

  • sportbri

    So far…

  • crabstu

    I do enjoy when feminists go after other women deemed ideologically impure.

  • sportbri

    Though to be fair, that human didn’t ask to be there either.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    sportbri:Hello? Are you still there? Did you read my post? Okay, so far?

  • sportbri

    Yeah I’m here.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    Okay. Now, imagine, you am at home. You have taken every possible precaution to prevent the entry into my home of intruders.However, a burglar makes his way in. In the middle of his attempts to pursue his goal, he suffers an allergy attack.The pollen count is high, he is in mortal danger, and if you don’t close the window he will die.Are you, then, obligated to close the window?

  • sportbri

    I don’t see the parallel. It’s not like a person can choose the time of his/her own conception.And certainly you’re not saying that an unwanted fetus is the moral equivalent of a burglar…And for the record, I would close the window and call an ambulance.

  • sportbri

    Now if a stranger accidently stumbled into that person’s apartment and then suffered that same alergic reaction…Better parallel.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    Correction:The PERSON did not ask to be in your body, but it is YOUR body that it is in, not the converse. Please keep this in mind.

  • sportbri

    A burglar means harm, and is in your house by choice.The comparison is thin.

  • arancia12

    I do enjoy when feminists go after other women deemed ideologically impure.POSTED BY: CRABSTU You’ve given an excellent example of reframing the argument. Or at least trying to.The issue is not about their ideological purity. It’s about their attempts to take another woman’s rights away and then calling themselves feminists.Feminists do not try to sell other women’s bodies for fame, fortune, power, and money.

  • arancia12

    ARANCIA12If natural rights include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” abortion is the ultimate violation of human rights. It denies all three.POSTED BY: SPORTBRI |Only if you define a zygote, and embryo, or a fetus that cannot live outside the womb as a person. Traditionally that fetus has not been defined as a person and scientifically we cannot prove it is a person. That remains for individual opinion.If you choose to believe a clump of cells is a person then that is your right. Remember, the founders wrote the Declaration for living human beings, not fetuses. Or corporations but that’s a different thread.

  • sportbri

    Okay. Then I am not morally obligated to close the window, even though my failure to do so will mean the end of the burglar’s life? And my failure to act should not incur legal consequences?POSTED BY: FARNAZ_MANSOURI2 | JUNE 16, 2010 8:57 PMIf a person deliberately endangers you or your family, and dies as a result… no legal consequences should ensue.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    Okay.Let us assume that the burglar will not harm you or your family, physically, but will burgle. YOu know this. Should you be legally obligated to close the window?

  • sportbri

    If you choose to believe a clump of cells is a person then that is your right. Remember, the founders wrote the Declaration for living human beings, not fetuses. Or corporations but that’s a different thread.Those cells are alive, growing, and developing… and the DNA is human.Seems simple enough.Human… life.

  • sportbri

    “Let us assume that the burglar will not harm you or your family, physically, but will burgle”Again, I think you should use a different comparison.Unlike a burglar, a fetus really has no choice in the matter.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    SPORTBR1Okay.Let us assume that the burglar will not harm you or your family, physically, but will burgle. YOu know this. Should you be legally obligated to close the window?

  • sportbri

    Is there a gun in the house? Why not grab it, close the window, and call the cops?Seems like there’s alternative options here.

  • sportbri

    Mothers can put a kid up for adoption. For a better comparison, why couldn’t I call the cops?

  • sportbri

    As I pointed out before. I think your rigid loyalty to the “burglar” comparison makes your argument a bit thin, no?

  • sportbri

    While I think you should use a better analogy, I do see where you’re going with this.

  • sportbri

    I would let the guy live. The idea that a burglar would come into my house, nearly die, have me save his life, and do anything besides leave as soon as he can stand would be astounding to me.

  • sportbri

    I mean, one minute, he’s moments from death, and then he goes on about his business and robs my house like nothing happened, and I’m not even there?

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    Sport:I could go on with the current analogy, move to additional analogies, various other argumentative strategies. No person has the right to live in another’s body.No person has the right to insist, as a third party, that someone has the right to live in your body. That does not mean you must approve of his/her right to cast the intruder out. It does suggest that you must not make it illegal for one to remove the intruder from his/her body.Consider the case of the Good Samaritan.I can accept that you wish to say, “Allow the intruder to live in your body,” that you disapprove of abortions. I can accept that you would try to convince pregnant women not to abort. What I cannot accept is that you would make it against the law for them to do so.But, as I say, I can go on, provide other analogies, etc. And, let me add, I am not for abortion. I have never met anyone who is, anywhere. That is not the point. But you are an intelligent person, and you know that.

  • sampjack

    Every hospital NICU (neo-natal intensive care unit) routinely saves the lives of 1# 23-week fetuses that are legal to abort. Having seen one such case, my grand-daughter, several hours after birth, take my word for it, she was a human being…

  • sportbri

    And the only counter-point I would like to make is that as far as I am concerned, Abortion is a decision made by one person for another.The decision is to cause the death of (again, as far as I am concerned) another human being.I’m afraid that is a compromise that I can not stomach.If it makes you feel any better, my views are a lot more practical than my fellow pro-lifers.I think the best way to eliminate abortion is to eliminate the demand for abortion to the point where it barely exists anyways, and THEN ban it.Idealistic? Yes. But I think we both can agree that a society that is truly without abortions (legal, or illegal) would be a happier, healthier society to live in.

  • veerle1

    I wish Carly Fiorina and Sarah Palin were in a Smart Car and got stuck on a railroad crossing. A very busy, high speed railroad crossing.

  • DwightCollins

    would you rather abort our children and turn America over to foreigners or raise our children to fulfill America’s future…

  • Fate1

    The left has no choice but to deny the humanity of the aborted.You logic only makes sense if the “left” wants all fetuses aborted as the nazis wanted all jews killed. Get the bad comparison you made?The “left” believes each woman has a right to make a decision about what is growing in HER body, and that no one else has the right to make that decision FOR HER.So, your sad analogy would be more correct if you said that abortion is like nazis giving guns to jews to kill members of their own family if they chose. Of course that did not happen but Germany would have been better off had that been their final solution.Now, as for the conservative final solution, no abortions, no contraception, no morning after pills, forced carrying of pregnancies with the weight of government to ensure it happens, is much closer to what the nazis did, removal of freedoms and denial of rights.

  • Capn0ok

    I suspect those who get their knickers in such a twist about abortion of being closet atheists who believe, deep down, that this life is all there is. Sure, abortion is a bad thing, but more children die in this world from lack of clean water and adequate nutrition. And if the problem manifests in pregnancy, the odds are they will take their mommies with them. Priorities, people!

  • sportbri

    FATE1My point was not that the left wants all fetuses aborted. My point was that the left can only morally justify abortion as a right if the deny the humanity of the unborn.Either way, they are justifying legally ending human lives.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    SportBr1:”My point was not that the left wants all fetuses aborted. My point was that the left can only morally justify abortion as a right if the deny the humanity of the unborn.Either way, they are justifying legally ending human lives.”

  • Capn0ok

    “My point was not that the left wants all fetuses aborted”

  • sportbri

    FARNAZ_MANSOURI2You’re absolutely, positively, 100% right about conservatives.I still think pro-choice advocates deny the humanity of the fetus because their position is morally bankrupt if they don’t.How else can you justify allowing the ending of human life to take place?

  • sportbri

    It’s called dehumanization. It is how society deals with legalized killing.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    SportBr1:I think the best way to eliminate abortion is to eliminate the demand for abortion to the point where it barely exists anyways, and THEN ban it.Idealistic? Yes.But I think we both can agree that a society that is truly without abortions (legal, or illegal) would be a happier, healthier society to live in.However, it is unlikely. Think of the women, and I know one, who took every precaution known to human, except the pill, which, for medical reasons she cannot take, but wound up pregnant. She and her husband were in no position to have another child, and the pregnancy made her temporarily insane since she did not want to have an abortion.However, if it were possible to eliminate the need all around, I’d be a happy camper.In the meantime, read Lee Rainwater, “And the Poor Get Children,” a classic, literally.Remember, too, that nothing works better at preventing teen pregnancy than education and outreach. There is one particular program that has been proven effective.To find others will cost taxpayer money. I’m willing. Are you?

  • Capn0ok

    It depends on when. I believe that a fetus becomes human when it has its first thought. If there’s no brain yet, it can’t think and it’s no more human than a tissue sample.

  • sportbri

    To find others will cost taxpayer money. I’m willing. Are you?Completely.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    SportBR1:To answer your question: If an intruder is in your body, wishes to remain for nine months, makes you sick to your stomach, causes you to vomit, possibly creates life-long problems for you, you can get rid of him/her.In my case, I knew when I was pregnant that I would develop a life-long medical problem if I gave birth to my daughter. But, we wanted a child very much. And the problem would be difficult, but in all likelihood controllable. I got more illness-wise than I would have liked, but we have our girl, and if I had it to do over again, I’d do it in a heartbeat.But we cannot insist that everyone do as I did. We cannot.

  • sportbri

    I understand. Maybe not as intimately as you, but I can certainly empathize.My aunt had an abortion. Childbirth would have killed both of them, and the hormones from the pregnancy gave her cancer.She died a couple years later.I’m an idealist, but I’m also a realist.If it’s out-right banned, and there’s still a big demand for it, it’ll just go underground, and become a worse problem than it already is.But the idealist in me still thinks eradicating it, demand-side, is a strongly desirable goal.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    SportBr:To find others will cost taxpayer money. I’m willing. Are you?Completely.

  • diehardlib

    It’s always amusing when a liberal trashes intolerance on the right while bringing to light their own intolerant viewpoints.

  • muawiyah

    LILDG54 ~ typical of so many Leftwingtards you immediately turned to name-calling.As I pointed out your demand for autonomy conflicts with the fact that you want me to pay taxes to protect you.Just doesn’t happen that way.You want protected, then shape up and follow correct moral precepts.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    sportbri:I am so sorry about your aunt. In my case, it was not cancer, but another problem that I developed. So far, what we gained in Az, my daughter, is incomparably more than I’ve lost. And, who knows, better medial treatments may develop.Like you, I am an idealist. I share your hopes for a world in which abortion would be unnecessary. I have always felt this way, and I imagine you have as well.

  • sportbri

    Then there is common ground. It would be wonderful if pro-choice and pro-life advocates would join together, en masse, to support efforts to make abortion unnecessary. There is common ground, and I’m glad we could find it at the end of our little discussion. You haven’t persuaded me, and I haven’t persuaded you, but you have given me a little hope. I wish you well.

  • Fate1

    sportbri wrote: “The decision is to cause the death of (again, as far as I am concerned) another human being.”And that is one clear difference honest people can have with one another, whether a fetus is a person or not at various stages. Its not a new debate and when it becomes a person has changed over time. Honest people can disagree when you allow yourself to see those you disagree with as honest.sportbri wrote: “I’m afraid that is a compromise that I can not stomach.”Fine, then don’t have an abortion and don’t advise others to have one. But turning what you cannot stomach into law is quite different. Some cannot stomach people eating meat. Luckily, what people cannot stomach does not become law for us thanks to the rights Americans have.sportbri wrote: “If it makes you feel any better, my views are a lot more practical than my fellow pro-lifers.”If they are practical, can you explain how you would enforce your views on others? Abortion used to be against the law. How many women’s deaths from back-alley abortions will you accept to try to save every fetus? And when you “save” the fetus, what then? Its still in her body. Strap her down in a hospital under armed guard until delivery? Then what? Is the baby the mother’s or does the state own it? Have you thought about these things?sportbri wrote: “I think the best way to eliminate abortion is to eliminate the demand for abortion to the point where it barely exists anyways, and THEN ban it.”Except for the “banning” part I think you would find the “left” in total agreement. But when you have people like Palin telling women they should not use contraceptives, and teaching abstinence is the only method of not having teen age pregnancies, well, I hope she learned that lesson, but probably not.sportbri wrote: “Idealistic? Yes.”Actually I think you are frustrated, as most people are. No one WANTS to have abortion happen. sportbri wrote: “But I think we both can agree that a society that is truly without abortions (legal, or illegal) would be a happier, healthier society to live in.”Exactly! So, now, what can we do to make that a reality? That is where these politicians should be coming up with answers. Not spouting simplistic rhetoric that abortion should be banned, coincidentally only during election years. Some churches work to provide day-care for women who otherwise might abort so they can stay on a job. Contraception should be taught. Adoption should be encouraged and supported for those considering an abortion. In many cases the woman feels she has no choice but to choose to abort, so instead of denying the choice come up with other choices for her. Those who are making a real difference are doing that, not working to make laws denying rights.

  • sportbri

    People who debate political issues often forget the humanity of the people they are arguing with. I try not to be one of those people, but sometimes I get carried away.Thank you for sharing your story with me. I’m glad we were able to discuss this cordially. I think I’ve learned something today.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    sportbriThere is common ground, and I’m glad we could find it at the end of our little discussion. You haven’t persuaded me, and I haven’t persuaded you, but you have given me a little hope. I wish you well.It is this, don’t you think, that the pro-choice and pro-life advocates should work toward–en mass–ending the need for abortion?We do not have to convince one another. We need–all of us–to work on that common ground.You have given me hope, as well.

  • muawiyah

    FATE1 ~ “people like Palin”….. do what?How about “people like Obama”….. steal billfolds out of unwatched purses.Gotta’ watch what you’re saying. You are obviously trying to put words into Sarah Palin’s mouth about contraceptive use. But am I impugning Obama’s character (regarding theft)?That was simply a rhetorical exercise to show you how the old “like so and so” arguments don’t really “link” anymore. People are onto them.Now, how about this ~ you folks go straight into total privatization of what it is you think you ought to do and not demand public protection for it.Right there is your problem ~ your demand for cops and guns. Take the guns out of it and I am sure it will be much more peaceful ~ maybe even the elderly nuns will quit praying for the babies or something eh!Everybody will be relieved that your personal preferences are no longer subsidized in any way with public subsidies too.Should bring a glorious future to the world of abortionists.Right?The problem here is that as long as you depend on the cops to stay open you are tapping my wallet to keep you in business.I don’t like your business. I don’t like you. I think I should be able to spend my own money as I like.Total autonomy in private spending is the clue.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    muawiyah:Re: Your post to FATEAre you saying you don’t think we should pay taxes to hire police?

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    Barferio:There may not be a solution but as pro-lifer, SportBr says we can work to eliminate the need for abortion. A conservative, Sport would also be willing to have our tax dollars used to that end.We don’t need to agree on choice (as I do with you). If we could just stay focused on our common ground….

  • sportbri

    Well, I prefer to think of myself as a right-of-center moderate, one of the last of my kind I dare say.You’d be surprised how liberal I am on a lot of other issues.Just not Abortion.

  • sportbri

    I think the single biggest problem we have in this nation’s politics is not any single issue.It is a problem of communication.Our parties (and advocates) often take the position that their side is right, the other side is wrong, and that’s the end of that.They talk at each other, not to each other.When Americans on the left and the right realize that we’re really all on the same side, America will be a stronger country.

  • sportbri

    I would be one of the ladder. I think the Burqa is a first amendment issue. But then again, I’m dating a muslim. Maybe I’m biased.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    There you go. And I do not. Even more interesting, I have Muslim family and friends, who disapprove of the burqua so strongly that they’d like to see it illegal.I suggested on a thread of Quinn that the blog work toward bringing people together, toward finding common ground.Do blogs have to be combative?

  • postfan1

    Funny how this author sees no possibilities for opinions other than her own, as verified by her slanted vocabulary.”Anti-choice?” I suppose that would be a more apt description of an author who believes that her opinion is the only possibility.This author is anti-”anyone who believes in anything”. Funny how those who believe in nothing don’t much value life.

  • bobmoses

    “The decision to have a child or abort a fetus is a personal one that cannot be made by anyone else.”Would you support aborting a baby a day before its due date? If you don’t, you are a hypocrite. If you do, you have serious moral issues.

  • sportbri

    There you go. And I do not. Even more interesting, I have Muslim family and friends, who disapprove of the burqua so strongly that they’d like to see it illegal.I suggested on a thread of Quinn that the blog work toward bringing people together, toward finding common ground.Do blogs have to be combative?POSTED BY: FARNAZ_MANSOURI2 | JUNE 16, 2010 10:47 PMI think your idea for a blog that brings people together is one of the best ideas I’ve heard.We can fight over the usual suspects if we want to, or we can listen to each other, and work together to enact real change.I’ve always believed that.Where can I sign up?

  • venez0ia

    That’s a new twist: “pro-choice and anti-choice.”Isn’t “pro-choice” really the battle camouflage garb of the “anti-Life” posse?

  • sportbri

    I would also add that I find your muslim friends interesting. People come in all shapes and sizes don’t they?

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    SportBr:I think your idea for a blog that brings people together is one of the best ideas I’ve heard.We can fight over the usual suspects if we want to, or we can listen to each other, and work together to enact real change.I’ve always believed that.Where can I sign up?It seems that here, whenever we all agree, people stop blogging. It’s as if we either have to rant or cease. What happens is we all say we agree, usually with Susan Jacoby, and that is the end of the discussion. Or, else, we go off topic and focus on topics, not issues.I wonder if Susan could write an essay on eliminating the need for abortion in such a way that people would participate. They could share ideas, experiences, etc.What do you think?

  • fr3dmars

    Oh gee – let’s see, the examples of the “icons” of this movement are” Sarah (Tina laughs all the way to the bank) Palin, whose message of abstinence worked SO well with her daughter and and Carly who turned the (arguably) finest technology company in American history into a mediocre mass-market purveyor of offshored schlock with pitiful offshored customer service – Yep, they should be afforded with gravitas on ANY issue of greater consequence than the time of day (which is, hopefully, not reported by one of Carly’s computers)?Oh yeah, the warm-hearted gov. of Arizona? Women’s liberation is a fact – women are now free to be as foolish and dangerous as men. No – I haven’t despaired, simply, those who seek great power are generally as clueless and soulless as men who do the same. I guess that IS equality .

  • castellina

    Pro-abortion people like Ms.Jacoby are fretting because they see their numbers dwindling. For the first time in over a decade more people define themselves as pro-life than pro-abortion. The new generation of women reject the outdated notion of a feminism that began in a legitimate fashion but ultimately degenerated into absurdity. And the idea that a woman has the right to kill her own child is the summit of absurdity.

  • sportbri

    Actually, there are such blogs, are there not?It seems that here, whenever we all agree, people stop blogging. It’s as if we either have to rant or cease. What happens is we all say we agree, usually with Susan Jacoby, and that is the end of the discussion. Or, else, we go off topic and focus on topics, not issues.I wonder if Susan could write an essay on eliminating the need for abortion in such a way that people would participate. They could share ideas, experiences, etc.What do you think?POSTED BY: FARNAZ_MANSOURI2 | JUNE 16, 2010 11:24 PMI think it’s a great idea. I’ve been waiting for somebody to tackle that side of the abortion debate for a long time, and nobody seems willing to do it.I’d back it too.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    Sport:I think it’s a great idea. I’ve been waiting for somebody to tackle that side of the abortion debate for a long time, and nobody seems willing to do it.I’d back it too.

  • sportbri

    I’m actually pretty new here. I saw an interesting link on the homepage, and couldn’t resist.I’m guessing you’re a regular.But I’m game to submit that request if you are. It’d definitely be enough to bring me back.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    Sport:I’m actually pretty new here. I saw an interesting link on the homepage, and couldn’t resist.I’m guessing you’re a regular.But I’m game to submit that request if you are. It’d definitely be enough to bring me back.I think you will enjoy it if you stick around, and I think we need more people who are seeking common ground–here and everywhere.

  • WmarkW

    Pro-abortion people like Ms.Jacoby are fretting because they see their numbers dwindling. This is unfortunately very true.I divide the anti-abortion community into two groups: the sincere (if misguided) ones who believe God thinks fetuses are children, and support a strong safety net for poor mothers and children; the paleocons who think women’s wombs should be treated as a national resource over which we should all exercise stewardship.The latter position is morally wrong under Western values, but appears to be a positive for society. Advanced feminist places like Anglo-America and Western Europe have to import people from pre-feminist places like Latin America and the Middle East, because our educated women have such a low birth rate. I think 2010 is supposed to be first year in American history that the majority of births will not be non-Hispanic whites.This is one of the reasons I support strong immigration controls — we’ve reached the tipping point at which if we keep letting in the kind of illegals we have been, they will destroy secular values. Our legal immigrants, because they’ve been selected for high education, are usually more accepting of our values even if they come from backwards places, they emmigrated for exactly that reason.

  • PQSully

    “PQSully got an answer but now has more questions! It seems to me that PQSULLY has had the argumentative rug pulled out from under him (her?) (it?). Gosh, now you want to formulate legislation? it seems to me that if abortion does indeed become illegal there won’t be doctor’s offices making appointments. Sorry for your lack of imagination, but them’s the breaks.”No, :she/he/it” is still posing the same question: if abortion is made illegal, what are the penalties? Abortions WILL still happen, do we not agree? So someone WILL still be performing them. Maybe underground doctors (as you say, you won’t be able to just make an appt at your OBGYN. But fine, lets say no doctors will perform abortions and they are all administered by back alley abortionists. What are the penalties for the mother? The abortionist? The abortionist’s landlord who knows what’s going on but does nothing to stop it–a conspirator? Again, I hear time and time again that abortion is murder: so should all these “murderers” be convicted AS murderers, with either lengthy prison sentences or the chair?If an action is declared a crime, there MUST be associated penalties. Is abortion going to be a felony or a misdemeanor? If the only punishment is a fine, does that dilute the argument that abortion is the moral equivalent of killing a “born” human being? If you insist on criminalizing abortion, you MUST ultimately address these questions.

  • lepidopteryx

    Personally, I would love to see a day when every child conceived is wanted, loved, and healthy, and every pregnancy is risk-free. Until that day arrives, the abortion option will remain necessary.

  • boblesch

    put your money where your mouth is – adopt some children.

  • shaheed-yahudi

    S A R A — P A L I N is as cute as an Alaskan Bear; but Dumb as Salmon!S A R A — P A L I N isas cunning as a Fox; but as dangerous as a trap.S A R A — P A L I N isnot worthy of Shining Uncle-Sam’s Shoes; VOTE: DOWN w/SARA! DOWN w/SARA! DOWN w/SARA!

  • WmarkW

    Gee, this article got over 450 comments yesterday (daybreak-daybreak) and so far today there are five.

  • JohnGaltIsHere

    One of the posters said “your objection is unsubstantiated babble. You have failed to establish that ‘this is human life we’re talking about.’ We may simply be talking about embryonic life. If you disagree, please explain why. Simply proclaiming that a fetus is a person does not make it so.”I really cannot fathom how anyone could possibly think that an embryo is not human life. I did not say an embryo was a person, since I don’t think that’s relevant to the fundamental question – which is whether our society and laws should condone the elimination of human life to suit the needs of a woman. Our laws currently condone the killing of an embryo/human life essentially during the first trimester. And my view is that our society should be repulsed by this.

  • Eric12345

    FARNAZ_MANSOURI2 – No, I don’t think someone should be free to choose an abortion. I said I can’t force anyone to register to be an organ or marrow donor against their will. Abortion is the taking of a human life, in my mind, which is different. Therefore, the government has a responsibility to protect that life.So, back to my question, what kind of penalty do you think someone should be subject to if he or she doesn’t register to be a donor? I’m asking this because it’s a question I’ve been asked often by abortion rights supporters. They seem to think it’s pertinent to this discussion. Do you?

  • Eric12345

    BUCKMINSTERJ – Obviously, it depends on one’s definition of “person” as to whether zygotes, embryos or fetuses are people. Your definition excludes them to some degree or another. Other people’s definitions don’t. This is a common point of difference in the abortion debate: how to define person?As to whether the terms “person” or “baby” are “unfair” or “unhelpful,” this depends entirely on your point of view. Using those terms isn’t helpful for people who think abortion is nothing more than excising a clump of unwanted tissue, but they are helpful to people who want to change people’s minds about whether a developing human life is worthy of legal protection. While part of the abortion debate, like most other debates, is based on logic and reason, part of it, like most other debates, is based on emotional appeals. Using the terms “baby” or “person” is an emotional appeal, the purpose of which is to help people see the innate humanity in what is growing in the womb. I get why you don’t like it. But if you want to purge emotional appeals from the debate, please start with the pro-abortion rights side and then focus on the other side.

  • Eric12345

    SHAHEED-YAHUD – Your comments add nothing of substance to this discussion.

  • WmarkW

    Our laws currently condone the killing of an embryo/human life essentially during the first trimester. And my view is that our society should be repulsed by this.Obviously, few people would draw the line before conception as a matter of law (some do as a matter of personal morals, which is fine.) The question then becomes whether immediately upon learning of an unintended conception is too late. That’s what motivates virtually all non-medically necessary abortions.

  • WmarkW

    BTW, I would support laws prohibiting abortion for sex selection, like happens in Asia. Fortunately, that’s not a problem in America; but if it was, I’d favor putting up roadblocks to stop it.

  • Eric12345

    WMARKW – Just out of curiosity, how would you determine the motivation (sex selection) for getting an abortion?

  • PSolus

    “BTW, I would support laws prohibiting abortion for sex selection, like happens in Asia.”That is as unenforceable as banning abortion for any other specific personal reason.”Fortunately, that’s not a problem in America;…”Are you sure that you have a way of knowing that that is true?”…but if it was, I’d favor putting up roadblocks to stop it.”See my first comment above.

  • WmarkW

    ERIC12345 — I’d prohibit revealing sex before some date and abortion thereafter.

  • PSolus

    “I’d prohibit revealing sex before some date and abortion thereafter.”That’s pretty amazing; is there any other additional control that you want to impose on pregnant women?

  • WmarkW

    To the last couple of posters about my sex-selection proposal:You understand that this was under the hypthetical situation that women were using abortion for sex selection to a non-trivial extent. IF that was the case, we would be justified in taking affirmative steps to prevent it. Fortunately, we don’t have to face that.But, general point here, almost all abortion decisions are made responsibly and consistently with our culture’s values. If they weren’t, restrictions would be necessary. But they are.

  • Eric12345

    WMARKW wrote “almost all abortion decisions are made…consistently with our culture’s values.”How sadly true that is.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    ERIC12345:FARNAZ_MANSOURI2 – No, I don’t think someone should be free to choose an abortion. I said I can’t force anyone to register to be an organ or marrow donor against their will. Abortion is the taking of a human life, in my mind, which is different. Therefore, the government has a responsibility to protect that life.So, back to my question, what kind of penalty do you think someone should be subject to if he or she doesn’t register to be a donor? I’m asking this because it’s a question I’ve been asked often by abortion rights supporters. They seem to think it’s pertinent to this discussion. Do you?

  • ETSRAM

    So sad that you seem to think that all women should be pro-choice and embrace other ideologies of the feminists movement. One day you’re rejecting absolute truth, the next you’re trying to impose your absolute “truth” on others. SMH.

  • Eric12345

    farnaz_mansouri2 – Yes, I do. Now please do me the courtesy of answering my questions. I’ve answered all of yours.

  • farnaz_mansouri2

    ERIC,Will answer after we’re done with abortion. As you remarked the question you asked of meSo, I will ask it as well. What kind of penalty should there be for someone who chooses to have an abortion should abortion be made illegal?

  • ShorinBJ

    “One could also say, ‘Who am I second guess a man who beats his wife? Maybe she nags him, or denies him sex or whatever. So much as I deplore wife beating I do not want to second guess a husband.’”You really can’t compare the two. The husband isn’t making a private medical decision which affects his body to a great degree here. Not to mention that he can get a divorce. What recourse do you suggest for a woman who is not willing to take on the burden of pregnancy, if not an abortion?Unnecessary and cruel? I can concede that she may be aborting for dubious reasons. But I’m not a mind-reader. I can’t judge her motives that way. But I really don’t think she’s doing it to be cruel.

  • Eric12345

    FARNAZ_MANSOURI – I’ve answered this question already on this blog in response to being asked by another person. If you wish to go look up my answer below, you can.I have, in good faith, answered every question you’ve put to me. You refuse to answer mine. I get the sense you’re not interested in a conversation, but instead, want to interrogate me. I’m not interested in discussing this issue with an interrogator. I can understand why you don’t want to answer my question; it messes up your debater’s trick. But until you answer my question, your interrogation is over.

  • PSolus

    Eric12345,It appears to me (perhaps to others, also) that you lack strength in your conviction. You appear to be against abortion, and you say that you want to take away women’s freedom to choose abortion, but you seem unwilling to do the heavy lifting that is required to actually prevent abortions.

  • Eric12345

    PSOLUS – Why is that?

  • PSolus

    “PSOLUS – Why is that?”Why is what?

  • Eric12345

    PSOLUS – You said that I “seem unwilling to do the heavy lifting that is required to actually prevent abortions.” So I asked, why does it seem that way?

  • PSolus

    Eric12345,”PSOLUS – You said that I “seem unwilling to do the heavy lifting that is required to actually prevent abortions.” So I asked, why does it seem that way?”In our discussion, I asked if you were in favor of a sure-fire way of preventing most, if not all abortions, and you said that you were not in favor, because it went too far.If I’m not mistaken, others have asked you how far are you willing to go to stop abortions; the only answer that I have seen from you is that you want to take away women’s freedom to have abortions.That will not stop abortions; all that will do is make abortions illegal, more difficult, and more dangerous.So the question remains: Exactly what would you be in favor of doing in order to prevent most, if not all, abortions?

  • Eric12345

    PSOLUS – Let’s be clear here. No one, other than you, has asked me what I would do to prevent abortions. I’ve been asked by a couple people what legal penalties I would impose on people who had abortions or participated in them. There’s a difference. Your question is much broader.Along with criminalizing most abortions and imposing legal penalties on those who participate in them, I support efforts to ensure that pregnant women, fathers, and their children receive support during and after pregnancy so that they don’t feel like they’re in this alone. Women often turn to abortion because they don’t know how they’ll deal with all that having a child brings. They need support of various forms from their community and society. Our society is not very good at this.Again, we will never be able to prevent all abortions just as we will never be able to prevent all murders, but we can do two things: 1) pass laws that tell people that our society does not condone such acts and 2) try to fix the underlying situation that often leads people to think that taking that road is their best option.

  • PSolus

    Eric12345,”Along with criminalizing most abortions…”Which abortions would not be criminalized?”..and imposing legal penalties on those who participate in them,…”Jailing women who have abortions?”I support efforts to ensure that pregnant women, fathers, and their children receive support during and after pregnancy so that they don’t feel like they’re in this alone.”Who will pay for this support?”Women often turn to abortion because they don’t know how they’ll deal with all that having a child brings. They need support of various forms from their community and society. Our society is not very good at this.”What entails “support”? Money? Food? Clothing? Housing? Education? Counseling?”Again, we will never be able to prevent all abortions just as we will never be able to prevent all murders, but we can do two things: 1) pass laws that tell people that our society does not condone such acts…”Even if our society does indeed condone such things? Bear in mind that abortion is currently legal in the U.S. and in most countries.”…and 2) try to fix the underlying situation that often leads people to think that taking that road is their best option.”Even if it means invading people’s privacy?

  • Eric12345

    PSOLUS – Support for women, fathers and children takes many forms, some of which you’ve listed. They’d be provided/paid for in the same way our society provides things to be people in need today, through various public and private sources.When I said “tell people that our society does not condone such acts” I am presuming that if the government was able to pass a law banning abortion then a general societal consensus was achieved that abortion should be banned. As to your question about privacy, I’m not sure why privacy would have to be invaded in order to rectify the situations that lead women to think that abortion is the best option. Does the support I mention above involve invading privacy? Do our current social support systems invade privacy?As for the legal issues, I think abortion should be illegal unless carrying a baby to term puts the mother’s life in danger or she’s in serious risk of negative physical health effects. Jail time would be an appropriate penalty.

  • PSolus

    Eric12345,”They’d be provided/paid for in the same way our society provides things to be people in need today, through various public and private sources.”So, you are in favor of raising taxes and increasing the size of the government in order to prevent a certain number of abortions, but not all abortions.What about the women who will then get pregnant because they are in need of the “support” to which they are not entitled if they are not pregnant?”When I said “tell people that our society does not condone such acts” I am presuming that if the government was able to pass a law banning abortion then a general societal consensus was achieved that abortion should be banned.”So, since the government is not able to pass a law banning abortion, is the current general societal consensus that abortion should not be banned?”As to your question about privacy, I’m not sure why privacy would have to be invaded in order to rectify the situations that lead women to think that abortion is the best option. Does the support I mention above involve invading privacy?”You tell me; it’s your idea, not mine.”Do our current social support systems invade privacy?”I’m sure they do; I’ll bet that if I applied for food stamps, I would not simply receive them, but would have to fill out many forms, and allow the government to investigate many aspects of my life that I would prefer that they didn’t.”As for the legal issues, I think abortion should be illegal unless carrying a baby to term puts the mother’s life in danger or she’s in serious risk of negative physical health effects.”Would you consider hemorrhoids a “negative physical health effect”?”Jail time would be an appropriate penalty.”How many years?

  • Eric12345

    PSOLUS – If you’re asking where funding would come from to provide public social services to needy pregnant women and their eventual children, it can come from various sources. Raising taxes is an option. Or you could reduce spending in other areas and redirect it. Sorry, I don’t have a perfect budgetary plan worked out for this. As to your question about women getting pregnant in order to gain “support,” do you think women would do this in significant enough numbers that it would be a serious problem? If so, I’m not sure there’s much we could do to prevent this. There are always people out there who are going to take advantage of social support programs.No, there is not a societal consensus today to ban practically all abortions.If that’s the type of “privacy invasion” you’re talking about (i.e. food stamp application), then yes, there would be an “invasion of privacy” involved.Hemorrhoids do not rise to the level of a serious health effect. I’m talking about risk of death, permanent disability, etc. I don’t know how many years in jail would be appropriate. For most crimes today there is a sliding scale of punishments based on what jurisdiction a crime is committed, the situation, who the convicted person is, their mental state, etc. I can’t say someone should be put in jail for x number of years in all cases. I don’t have a good enough working knowledge of our legal system.So, do you think abortion should be legal in all instances?

  • PSolus

    “As to your question about women getting pregnant in order to gain “support,” do you think women would do this in significant enough numbers that it would be a serious problem?”In the 50s and 60s, most welfare was available only to fatherless households. Men left their families in droves to ensure that their wives and children had shelter and food. It was a very human reaction to the reality of the times.”So, do you think abortion should be legal in all instances?”Absolutely.

  • Eric12345

    PSOLUS – So you’d even support a right to abortion up to a day before birth was to occur despite what science tells us about the development of the fetus at that point in time? This is a fetus, that if it wasn’t inside a woman’s body, would be considered a baby and could live outside the womb with little more than breast milk and a warm bed. You’d support the right of a person to end its life and throw it’s body in the garbage? Why?

  • PSolus

    “PSOLUS – So you’d even support a right to abortion up to a day before birth was to occur despite what science tells us about the development of the fetus at that point in time?”Yes. Not sure about the legality of it, though.BTW, what does “science tells us about the development of the fetus at that point in time?”"This is a fetus, that if it wasn’t inside a woman’s body, would be considered a baby and could live outside the womb with little more than breast milk and a warm bed.”Are you sure that “science” told you that?”You’d support the right of a person to end its life and throw it’s body in the garbage?”I support the right of the woman to abort, and to allow the medical team to handle the aborted fetus as prescribed by law. Again, I’m unsure of the current legality of the above.That was a very emotional question.”Why?”It’s not so much a question of “why”, as it is a question of “why not”?I’m guessing that you were hoping that I would say “No” to the above scenario so that you could come back with “2 days before birth”, “3 days before birth”, “4 days before birth”, ad infinitum to “1 second after conception”.There are no magical numbers; we do not live in a magical universe.

  • Eric12345

    PSOLUS – It’s a scientific fact that a fetus, at nine months, is a sentient human being capable of a range of emotions and can feel pain. You ask, why not allow this life to be destroyed. Why not? Because it’s barbaric to end it.I realize there are no magical numbers about when life begins. There’s no scientifically certifiable day. It’s all a matter of individual opinion. But I was hoping you’d give your reasoning as to why you think a life should be unprotected by our laws one day when it’s in the womb, but is deserving of legal protection the next. The only thing that has changed is it’s location and that it’s no longer connected to the mother by the umbilical cord.

  • PSolus

    “It’s a scientific fact that a fetus, at nine months, is a sentient human being capable of a range of emotions and can feel pain.Are you sure that that is true? How do scientists measure “a range of emotions” of a fetus? How do they differentiate pain from reflex?”You ask, why not allow this life to be destroyed.No. I asked “Why does the woman not have the right to abort?”"Why not? Because it’s barbaric to end it.”Define “barbaric”.I realize there are no magical numbers about when life begins. There’s no scientifically certifiable day. It’s all a matter of individual opinion. But I was hoping you’d give your reasoning as to why you think a life should be unprotected by our laws one day when it’s in the womb, but is deserving of legal protection the next.”I did not say that “a life should be unprotected by our laws one day when it’s in the womb, but is deserving of legal protection the next.”Those are your words, not mine.”The only thing that has changed is it’s location and that it’s no longer connected to the mother by the umbilical cord.”Actually, there’s a lot more going on than that.

  • Eric12345

    PSOLUS – Yes, I am sure it is true. I don’t know how scientists differentiate pain from reflex, but nine-month old fetuses can feel pain. Scientists and doctors are pretty smart people; they have ways of testing these sort of things.Read this:Even Britain doesn’t allow abortions in the ninth month. The vast majority of nations don’t either. World consensus, even Western consensus, is against your position.A woman shouldn’t have the right to abort a nine-month old fetus because it’s barbaric. I’m using the word as it’s defined in any dictionary. Barbarism pretty much sums up what happens when a nine-month old fetus is aborted. I’m sure you’ve seen the pictures, so I won’t bother with that.You said that a woman should have the right to abort her fetus any day up to birth, which would entail ending the life in her womb. Therefore, the fetus would not be protected legally from this action before birth (unless there’s some arcane legal theory I don’t know about that pronounces something illegal yet legally sanctions it at the same time.) Yet, I assume you’d support legal protection for a newborn baby.

  • PSolus

    “PSOLUS – Yes, I am sure it is true. I don’t know how scientists differentiate pain from reflex, but nine-month old fetuses can feel pain. Scientists and doctors are pretty smart people; they have ways of testing these sort of things.”I have no doubt that you believe the above.”Read this:You are aware that that is an opinion piece? I am well aware that you share the opinion of the article, and I’m sure that you believe every word of it.”Even Britain doesn’t allow abortions in the ninth month. The vast majority of nations don’t either. World consensus, even Western consensus, is against your position.”I am aware of that.”A woman shouldn’t have the right to abort a nine-month old fetus because it’s barbaric.”Is aborting an eight-month-old fetus not “barbaric”, or simply less “barbaric”?Do you have a mathematical formula that can predict a window of zero “barbarity”?”I’m using the word as it’s defined in any dictionary. Barbarism pretty much sums up what happens when a nine-month old fetus is aborted. I’m sure you’ve seen the pictures, so I won’t bother with that.”Yes, I have seen many pictures.”You said that a woman should have the right to abort her fetus any day up to birth, which would entail ending the life in her womb.”You are making an assumption there.”Therefore, the fetus would not be protected legally from this action before birth (unless there’s some arcane legal theory I don’t know about that pronounces something illegal yet legally sanctions it at the same time.)”You are confusing a person’s rights with what is legal in any particular jurisdiction. They do not always coincide.”Yet, I assume you’d support legal protection for a newborn baby.”Just as I support legal protection for pregnant women.

  • ehkzu

    If those who call themselves “pro-life” meant it, they’d advocate all nations adopting Communist China’s “one child” policy, along with supporting free no-question-asked abortion and sterilization on demand.The reason has nothing to do with “a woman’s right to choose” or any of the other talking points being batted back and forth in this discussion.It’s overpopulation. Ideologues of the Left and Right unite in their denial of this crisis, because admitting it would trump their utopian agendas.When challenged about this they point to the relatively low rates of reproduction in the rich world–to countries like Russia and Japan worried about even losing numbers.If only that were true everywhere. Instead the total number of living people on Earth is increasing at the rate of 140 people per minute. The world’s human population has quadrupled since the turn of the last century. Even America’s population has doubled since the 1960′s. We act as if there’s an infinite amount of potable water, of farmland, of fisheries, so that we can indulge in our instinct for procreation–an instinct that made sense 80,000 years ago when the entire human race only included less than 2,000 fertile women.There isn’t. Fisheries are collapsing around the planet. Farmland is turning into desert due to soil exhaustion, salinization, overdependence on fertilizers (which run off into the rivers and eventually poison the fisheries). Overpumping is caused the porous aquifer formations wells depend on to collapse (and once they’ve collapsed they never come back). Today one billion people live in a state of starvation. Even more lack regular access to potable water.Leftists and rights deny these facts, and claim that some kind of technological advancement or reshuffling of existing resources will enable the human race to double, triple, quadruple its numbers.We call people psychotic when their worldview doesn’t connect to reality.Our gut instinct commands us to save every child, encourage every pregnancy, all in the name of Life. but now, if we don’t go against those instincts, Nature will take of things her way. And I promise you it will make the inhumanity of China’s One Child policy look like a heavenly dream by comparison.www.blogzu.blogspot.com

  • Eric12345

    PSOLUS – It’s pretty clear you have little to no desire to actually explain why you support a woman’s right to abort a nine-month old fetus. I’m tiring of what appears to me to be your intentional obtuseness. If you’re not able to be clear and direct about this issue, you shouldn’t have started this conversation.

  • PSolus

    “PSOLUS – It’s pretty clear you have little to no desire to actually explain why you support a woman’s right to abort a nine-month old fetus.”I support a woman’s right to abort a nine-month-old fetus for the same reason that I support a woman’s right to abort an eight-month-old fetus, a seven-month-old fetus, a six-month-old fetus, a five-month-old fetus, a four-month-old fetus, a three-month-old fetus, a two-month-old embryo, a one-month-old embryo, or a one-second-old zygote.It is growing inside her body – and as long as it is inside her body, she is the only person who has the right to make any decisions regarding it.If said fetus were growing inside “I’m tiring of what appears to me to be your intentional obtuseness.”I don’t doubt that. We are discussing ideas that are difficult for many people to understand.”If you’re not able to be clear and direct about this issue, you shouldn’t have started this conversation.”You seem to have a proclivity for deciding what other people should and should not do.

  • mrbradwii

    Abortion as a means to save a mothers life, or kill off an incestuous or rape made spawn is hardly ever the issue. Even our religious wingnuts could grant “special dispensation” to allow that.Or else they’re retards who should’ve been aborted themselves.{Gasp!} Yes, now reread the sentence and you’ll see the main issues and problem with abortion. Abortion as social engineering, abortion as commoditizable service, abortion as tool of power and control of one privileged group over another.That a woman has the final say as to the contents of her own body is a given. But the environment in which any decision is made is at least as important. Doctors who lie are liars and cheats, worse than any promiscuous fornicating man or woman on the planet, unless, of course, they themselves are liars and cheats. However, one would also hope in this day age a woman thought as much about went into that snatch as much as what she would allow out of it.Now, I cannot carry a colon-load for nine-hours without discomfort, so I cannot for the life of me imagine a woman carrying a child for nine months and then deciding on a *whim* that *now* is a good time to change her mind. Nobody goes through that without some compensation.Acceptable compensation is that the mother may continue to live given the procedure, without which she would die. Acceptable compensation is the painless death of the fetus who would otherwise die a miserable suffering death after disengaging from the womb.Acceptable compensation does not include the utilitarian aftermarket for residual spawn cells. It does not include bribery or extortion.Everything else comes under the purview of conscious choice and conscience. Sally Palin wants to keep her waterbaby, fine. Another woman doesn’t, well, as long as she’s informed that this will not kill her nor will the child suffer miserably, and yet she still can’t find the stomach or resources to bear it, then that’s fine too. And if another won’t keep it, but instead drops it at Catholic Charities without aborting, well god bless ya honey.Decisions need to be made with factual information. Environments need to exist which don’t encourage utilitarian consequences. Power needs to be cowed so that the will of the womb-nazis cannot engineer your behavior, either to keep the unwanted thing, or more importantly *to force the excision* of it after quotas or some other whim of government has been met to meet some “greatest good for the greatest number ZPG” horse apples. See China.

  • PSolus

    “God will look upon the Abortionist and say,…”Your imaginary god is impotent.

  • mrbradwii

    [...]Which is why I argue so forcefully for the mother’s life in the face of danger or violence done to her. You apparently never got past the initial shock and awe remarks.We’ve had this discussion years ago on the other secular forum, so I’ve no wish to waste more breath on it than we’ve already spent. Suffice to say, if the unborn cannot live on the outside or will kill the living from the inside, it’s potential life is forfeit. SJ fears a “backlash” if people don’t kiss the ass of leftwing feminists. The stupidity of such fear is as self-evident as any great truths about human behavior or politics. Whether or not Carly is moderate, conservative, bible-believing, abortion-hating, baby loving, is immaterial. She’s not functional on a level of national politics as much as Palin or Pelosi. That these women are the best that we put forward to lead does not speak well of the gender, and it pains me to say that knowing several women more clear-eyed and capable, both left and right and religious and non-religious.Shame on this democracy.

  • PSolus

    “There is nowhere you can hide,…”There is no need to hide from your imaginary, impotent god.”God explains His unsurpassable love He has for man.”Well, he’s out of luck; I don’t swing that way.

  • PSolus

    “Apparently you never read Luke 12: 20…”No, I haven’t, but I have read Fred 14: 42, and Sam 13: 666.

Read More Articles

shutterstock_186364295
This God’s For You: Jesus and the Good News of Beer

How Jesus partied with a purpose.

egg.jpg
Jesus, Bunnies, and Colored Eggs: An Explanation of Holy Week and Easter

So, Easter is a one-day celebration of Jesus rising from the dead and turning into a bunny, right? Not exactly.

shutterstock_186566975
Hey Bart Ehrman, I’m Obsessed with Jesus, Too — But You’ve Got Him All Wrong

Why the debate over Jesus’ divinity matters.

SONY DSC
Dear Evangelicals, Please Reconsider Your Fight Against Gay Rights

A journalist and longtime observer of American religious culture offers some advice to his evangelical friends.

shutterstock_186090179
How Passover Makes the Impossible Possible

When we place ourselves within the story, we can imagine new realities.

shutterstock_186795503
The Three Most Surprising Things Jesus Said

Think you know Jesus? Some of his sayings may surprise you.

shutterstock_185995553
How to Debate Christians: Five Ways to Behave and Ten Questions to Answer

Advice for atheists taking on Christian critics.

HIFR
Heaven Hits the Big Screen

How “Heaven is for Real” went from being an unsellable idea to a bestselling book and the inspiration for a Hollywood movie.

This Passover, We’re Standing at an Unparted Red Sea

We need to ask ourselves: What will be the future of the State of Israel — and what will it require of us?

pews
Just As I Am

My childhood conversion to Christianity was only the first of many.

shutterstock_127731035 (1)
Are Single People the Lepers of Today’s Church?

In an age of rising singlehood, many churches are still focused on being family ministry centers.

2337221655_c1671d2e5e_b
Mysterious Tremors

People like me who have mystical experiences may be encountering some unknown Other. What can we learn about what that Other is?

bible
Five Bible Verses You Need to Stop Misusing

That verse you keep quoting? It may not mean what you think it means.

csl_wall_paper
What C.S. Lewis’ Marriage Can Tell Us About the Gay Marriage Controversy

Why “welcome and wanted” is a biblical response to gay and lesbian couples in evangelical churches.