"Married, with an unborn baby that's unable to survive outside of the womb,"

With ghouls like Fiendstein around, babies are having an even tougher time surviving inside the womb.

Shawn:

But on this one, I'm going to have to disagree w/ you.

The Left has long raged that they shouldn't have to pay for defense (or wars) b/c they're opposed to it. And this view has, rightfully, been rejected.

I'm not sure how we can square that w/ the argument "But we should be able to not pay for abortion," so long as abortion is legal. Conservatives find abortion abhorrent, and understandably so. But unless/until they can persuade a majority of Americans to outlaw it, I'm afraid that they will have to pay for it.

Just as, until the Left can persuade most Americans that nuclear weapons, armed forces, and the ability to fight wars is not just "immoral" but illegal, they, too, are going to have to pony up for Minuteman missiles and Nimitz-class carriers.

Just for the record, it was Barbra Boxer who asked to be called Senator

LO
Unlike many things we pay for, national defense is covered in the Constitution.

Married, with an unborn baby that's unable to survive outside of the womb, her doctor tells her it's a threat to her health.

The weakness of the left, pro-death position is shown by the fact that they always always revert to this one scenario--married with a hopelessly impaired child that threatens the mother's health.

In reality, this situation is a tiny, tiny, fraction of the abortions carried out. I've yet to run into the lefty who is willing to debate this issue head to head without using these extreme examples (which admittedly do happen). I don't need to revert to the 30 year old hooker who has had 15 abortions (or the mother who aborts boys because she only wants girls, etc.) to explain my point of view on this issue.

Oops.

You're right, Lurker.

Thanks for the correction.

-Shawn

It is interesting how individuals on the right compare the legal right of choice with the formerly legal right of slavery, or amazingly the interning of Japanese citizens and aliens during WWII. On the other hand people on the left demand the right of gay marriage and equate that right with civil rights or religious freedom. From my perspective many of these comparisons beg the issue. Slavery for sure was a stain on any society that tolerated it. That is why we fought the Civil War with the resulting deaths of over 630,000 Americans. The right of a woman to control her own body is accepted with virtual unanimity all over the western world. We have finally advanced out of the darkness of the back alley and the enslavement of women as second class citizens by the orthodoxy of religious practice. But, with all that in mind, some people in America still equate this right with the legalization of slavery, no less murder. We also had a period in our history, not so long ago, when some religiously dominated and supported hospitals forced their doctors to sacrifice the mother for the life of the child during the birthing process. Was that right, sensible or idiotic? Was it right to let a mother die, who had the responsibility of a family and possibly other children for the life of a newborn? Are these religiously directed zealots ready to force their daughter to carry the child of a rapist, or tolerate incest, or carry a children terribly deformed with no hope of a normal life? These same folks object to the cost of government for this process they abhor, but how about the cost of warehousing unwanted and unloved children? How about the public cost of maintaining a deformed or severely retarded or disabled child? What about the people who object to that expense in the same way people object to the public financing of abortions? It is still public monies. Who is taking care of the millions in orphanages? Why are these children not adopted by the pro-life adherents? No, these zealots do not want the extra financial burden, but they are willing to force a woman to term, making the child a ward of the state and then take no responsibility for that child's welfare. Where does it begin or end? It is easy to declare that life starts at conception! Why not? But for sure these same people who are quite willing to place the burden on society for the lives of unwanted and unloved children, are against any sort of family planning and quite often are even against birth control, want government out of our lives, but they themselves practice birth control. It seems inconsistent to me, and another example of the hypocrisy of the right. I hear loudly and clearly, do as I say (Vitter, Ensign, Hyde, Sandford, Thurmond, Craig, and scores of others,)but don't do as I do!

Richard J, Garfunkel
Host of The Advocates
wvox radio 1460 am in NY
www.wvox.com

It was both lawful and absolutely justified for our government to inter ethnic Japanese ... during World War Two.

Just as it will, please Dear Lord, be as lawful as it will be absolutely justified, in the not unlikely event (particularly with such a gutless man-infant pretending to what is presently passing as a "presidency") we are one day at war with China, to inter, say, ethnic Chinese.

And I pray and trust the internment facilities are comfortable for, if it's an option, I shall keep my wife company while she is there!

B A - L A - CA -- and The Very Far Away

Clean up aisle seven! Projectile Commenting!

If these Democrats are so hell bent on forcing taxpayers to fund abortions while incessantly pointing to the most extreme of circumstances to make their case or elicit sympathy, ask them if they're willing to restrict tax payer funded abortion to those extreme circumstances only.

Allow me to answer that question for you: Hell no!

You'll never hear them say, "But it would interfere with getting her college degree!" - "But she doesn't like the father *that* much!" - "She's 'just not ready' to have a baby!" These are among many other 'not-extreme' reasons that account for the VAST majority of abortions. But they don't elicit the same level of sympathy so they're not used as part of the argument. They're not fighting to keep abortion for extreme circumstances - they're fighting to keep abortion on demand.

What the people like Feinstein and Boxer and everybody else who holds a questionable opinion on a moral issue does is try to use the legitimacy of State or Federal sanction to endorse their morally obtuse viewpoints. That is why the homosexuals have tried to move in on marriage.
They can wash away the stains of their sin through the 'legality' of that position. It is their way of absolving the responsibility of their actions off themselves and onto society as a whole.
If they want to be gay, thats their business, if they want to do something with their own body, that too is their business. Just leave Government out, leave other people out who disagree. Plenty of pro lifers do a lot to help single women have their babies. Maybe the pro choicers can pool their resources and fund their own abortion mills, until that barbaric practice can become obsolete through the Law.