The American Spectator

no name today| 1.22.10 @ 6:27AM

Having been on the abortionist table, I can say I regret it. No options were given, like adoption perhaps. How are we any different from Hitler and the chinese? Planned Parenthood is a money making business. What a way to make a dollar, eah?
All of the millions of slaughtered babies will be waiting for us when we go through the tunnel into the light.

John3| 1.22.10 @ 11:01AM

Dear no name today, I pray for your healing. God has infinite mercy and grace and this, too can be healed. I call on everybody to pray for you. May God Bless You!

republicanblack| 1.25.10 @ 10:45PM

I think you would be happy to know as a pro lifer I support your view. However, I saw this article on abortion and how its constitutional along with consistent with faith, though I was shocked it definitely challenged my view on abortion. Check it out

http://keironjackman.wordpress.....-politics/

Tammy| 1.26.10 @ 2:18PM

The Supreme Court is not a legislative body and has no right to make law--Roe v Wade is very bad law.

Twist yourself into a pretzel trying to rationalize your barbaric views, but dehumanizing the unborn in order to reject their right to life is no different than what was done to slaves in our past.

You would have made a great slave owner, liberal.

Alan Brooks| 1.22.10 @ 12:06PM

Forget about abortion and concentrate on the school system-- conservatism begins at hometowns, not in a Supreme Court ruling from 1973 D.C.

Do you want to be conservatives, or rightwing paranoids? make up your minds.
Poop or get off the pot.

Ray| 1.25.10 @ 8:14AM

FORGET about abortion? FORGET about the intentional murder of tens of millions of innocent children? That's the most obscene, most morally repugnant thing I have ever heard suggested!

Alan Brooks| 1.22.10 @ 1:07PM

This may be petty, but wasn't Roe v Wade in '73?
So it has been 37 years, not 36. You mean 36 years of protests?

Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 1.22.10 @ 3:34PM

Mr. Brooks, you are without a doubt a soul-less dead to humanity troll & everything you post here reeks of smarmy arrogant conceit. Ever think of running for Congress? Read the last paragraph of no name today's post again & this time comprehend what she wrote, because she is absolutely right. Also those slaughtered children she speaks of will not only be looking for the abortionist. They will also be looking for those like yourself who selfishly stood on the sidelines & did nothing to try & stop the slaughter. The abortionist & abortion supporters won't be the only ones to reap God's wrath. Those who allow evil to continue unabated through doing nothing will pay the ultimate price too. Think about that please before you make a fool of yourself again. May God have mercy on you & those who (don't) think like you. Have a nice day.

A. Brooks| 1.22.10 @ 4:42PM

"Mr. Brooks, you are without a doubt a soul-less dead to humanity troll & everything you post here reeks of smarmy arrogant conceit. Ever think of running for Congress?"

I'm a curmudgeon, you twit. This is a Rightwing as well as Con blog.
Congress? how 'bout RNC chair? even if one isn't a token negro, it might be good career move.

Alan Brooks| 1.22.10 @ 4:57PM

What is amazing is that some of you think I'm progressive, when I'm not optimistic enough to be so.
Progressives 'believe' in some sort of social progress, however misguided; I think postwar social progress ('50s- '90s) has run its course.
And that includes moral "progress". Get it?

Serge from Wellington| 1.23.10 @ 11:38PM

Alan Brooks: "Some of you think I'm progressive"

What a selfflattery! Who cares what you are?!

Tammy| 1.23.10 @ 11:55PM

Alan, I don't know your political affiliation, I just think you're severely depressed.

Look it up.

victor| 1.24.10 @ 8:40PM

Alan (Babbling) Brooks:
"This may be petty, but wasn't Roe v Wade in '73?
So it has been 37 years, not 36. You mean 36 years of protests?"

I think your abacus needs servicing.
Check your math.
You may need to take off your shoes, but I think you can do it if you take your time.
One-mississippi, 1974
two-mississippi, 1975
three-mississippi, 1975
four-mississippi, 1976
You get the picture, go slowly and you will make it to
37-mississippi, 2010.

DG in GA| 1.24.10 @ 2:18PM

I don't mean to pile on, No Name, but I cannot believe that if you were old enough to be having sex, and old enough to be having an abortion, that you had never heard of the concept of adoption. Just because the abortionist didn't mention it, doesn't mean you didn't know it was available. You did not CHOOSE it. I'm glad you feel guilty about your abortion. But don't pretend it was the only option available to you.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 7:45PM

DG, I'm sure you mean well, but No Name's suffering enough. No one will judge her as harshly as she's already judged herself.

Please pray for her.

no name today| 1.25.10 @ 6:54AM

DG, I'm glad you think you can stand in my shoes and judge who I was and my circumstances at the age of 17.

Tammy| 1.25.10 @ 7:35PM

Forgive others, No name, and you will be forgiven.

The only judgment that matters is God's.

Jon B| 3.13.10 @ 6:05AM

Obama's restoring of funds for pregnancy prevention measures in the world's poorest countries reduced abortions by 10's of millions in the next 8 years. Republicans lie about the Mexico City Policy by falsely claiming it funds abortions, etc. It's been illegal for US $'s to fund abortions overseas since 1973, but we DO fund pregnancy prevention measures, emergency field birth kits, etc.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_wrld.htm

1993: Repeal of the funding ban: President Clinton felt that private, foreign organizations should be able to receive USAID funding for that part of their programs that involved pregnancy prevention, even though they used their funds raised elsewhere to finance abortions or to appeal for abortion reform. On 1993-JAN-22, his second day in office, he rescinded the executive order.

2001: Reinstatement of the funding ban: On 2001-JAN-22, during his first day in office, President George W. Bush reinstated the funding ban for family planning programs run by agencies that also provide abortion services out of their own funds. His rationale was somewhat confusing. He wrote to the U.S. Agency for International Development: "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad." But no such funds have ever been granted. Existing legislation prevents foreign grants from being used to fund abortions or provide abortion counseling.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0126-05.htm

January 26, 2001: Family planning research groups, such as the Alan Guttmacher Institute, last year said that if US funding levels were restored to the $540 million (from $425 million), the following would happen: Nearly 12 million more couples in developing countries would gain access to modern methods of contraception.

There would be 4.3 million fewer unintended pregnancies, 1.5 million fewer unintended births, 500,000 fewer miscarriages; 2.2 million fewer abortions each year; 8,000 fewer deaths from unsafe abortions, 7,000 fewer deaths from other causes related to pregnancy and 92,000 fewer deaths of infants.

Bush cut funding on 1-22-2001, then cut it some more in 2002, so it was roughly 1/2 or just over $200 million. However, some of it was restored because of his 2003 Africa/Aids program, which he didn't fully fund either. Bush cut aids funding completely in early 2001, and dropped another program in Congress (around $800K more) too. then restarted the program 2 years later promising roughly the same $ amount he prevented in the first place.

I always wondered why Republicans supported a man whose policies increased abortions by over 20 million in 8 years. I still wonder...

Liberal Reader| 1.22.10 @ 6:49AM

You'll get no argument from me on this issue. Like millions of Democrats, I'm pro-life and working to correct my party's thinking. There seems to be some evidence that people's minds and hearts are being changed on this issue. A message of life's sanctity is very powerful. (Much more powerful, I might add, than accusations of "baby killing" hurled in anger.)

Truth to Power| 1.22.10 @ 8:58AM

"I'm pro-life and working to correct my party's thinking."

You're doing a hell of a job. You can't even get a consensus on partial birth abortion. I doubt your sincerity. By the way when you kill a baby or promote baby killing you might get called a baby killer.

Tim| 1.22.10 @ 9:07AM

Millions of Republicans support "choice", as does the latest man of the hour Scott Brown. I for one welcome Liberal Reader's post and thank him for it.

Truth to Power| 1.22.10 @ 11:06AM

I felt the way you do all the way up to 30 million dead babies. Pro life in the Democratic Party is all about posturing and never about real human lives. It could become that way in the Republican Party as well. I don't think we are there yet. By the way with all Scott Brown's faults with regard to abortion, he supports a ban on partial birth abortion and limiting federal funding. This seems far superior to Martha Coakley and one more reason to support him over her. I don't need what I consider a perfect position to align myself politically. Pro life democrats could force concessions in their party, they just don't. Shame on them.

S.L. Toddard| 1.22.10 @ 2:36PM

What have you accomplished, TTP, that LR has not?

Margie| 1.23.10 @ 2:22PM

Well for one thing, he isn't a S.Lithering L.izard.

S.L. Toddard| 1.24.10 @ 10:33AM

Who is bashing who today, Marge?

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 12:03PM

You are a snake, Toddard. You always pick on conservatives ans so I am free to call you what you are!

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 2:06PM

As of yesterday you (Toddard) posted that the reason the terrorists are terrorists is because of the U.S.A. Ron Paul's position as well. That deserves not only "bashing" but an invitation to all to do the same! You are a hypocrite because you call yourself a conservative yet blame America for terrorism. You are a liar.

victor| 1.24.10 @ 8:11PM

We conservatives are convincing the Republicans not to run any more Pro-Abortion, read "pro-choice" candidates.
Except for this one stupak, who are the Anti-Choice, Pro-Life democrats running the three ring circus over there at the House and Senate anyway?
Not to mention the Clown in the White House.
Apolpgies to any real Clowns who may read this.
At least they make us laugh for the right reasons.

Liberal Reader| 1.22.10 @ 2:37PM

Thanks, Tim. Kind of you to say.

Alan Brooks| 1.22.10 @ 5:03PM

Brown is pro-choice? naturally-- he is in Mass.

Nobama| 1.23.10 @ 11:52PM

Good thing for you your mother was pro-life, Brooks.

Jocon307| 1.23.10 @ 7:56AM

Right now the entire pro-life community owes a big debt of gratitude to Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat. Without his staunch stand on no Federal funding of abortion the Health Care monstrosity might have gotten even further than it has. Stupak has stuck to his guns and had an effect no pubbie could have had.

The Democratic party has been dreadful on abortion, but this is all the more reason to support and be grateful for the few true pro-lifers who are sticking it out for life on that side of the aisle.

Tony in Central PA| 1.22.10 @ 10:29AM

Keep working, L.R. We all have to. Hearts aren't going to be changed on this issue through polemics.

Nobama| 1.23.10 @ 11:51PM

Pro-life, my azz. You worship at the altar of atheistic Marxism and wear bright, shiny kneepads for the pro-infanticide Marxist, Obammy.

Nice try, though.

victor| 1.24.10 @ 8:06PM

Hairy Reider:
"Like millions of Democrats, I'm pro-life and working to correct my party's thinking."

Doing what? By continuing to vote for them and keeping them in power?

"There seems to be some evidence that people's minds and hearts are being changed on this issue."

Evidence? What evidence?
Everything I read about this, is that the democrats are fighting hammer and tong to keep Abortion in any and all of the health care bills as much as they can.

"Much more powerful, I might add, than accusations of "baby killing" hurled in anger."

In your opinion, would that be "protoplasm-killer"?
That is what your your democrat leadership considers that unborn child to be and pretty much disposable, eh?

Crying this morning.| 1.22.10 @ 6:58AM

To no name today. I feel the pain. Years ago, I fell in love with the, I thought at that time, the "one." It ended the day she came back to me with her girl-friend and told me she had had an abortion. I was so livid, I thought I would have killled he right on the spot if it had not been for the fact that her friend was standing beside her.
I have had years of trying to get over this incident, I never have. I still hold the deepest of hatred for that woman and I don't think the forgiveness the bible speaks of will ever enter my heart for the cowardness I witnessed that day. It is so wrong on so many levels. Not only for the fact that an innocent life was snuffed out that day, but I also realize that woman, if she ever did have a heart, may be in the same perdictiment of guilt and anguish today. I pray you find the forgivness Christ gives freely to us all, for me I'm waiting to stand before God and her to witness her banishment straight to hell for what she did to one of Gods children. I wish you peace in your life and in the afterlife. May God forgive you.

Barbara Gold | 1.22.10 @ 9:32AM

Thanks be to God His mercies are new every morning towards those who would sorrow over such an act . He also commands that we extend the same love and mercy to others no matter what . Perhaps you could pray for this woman today that she would find peace and forgiveness .

Margie| 1.22.10 @ 12:54PM

Hi Crying one,
I have something to say to you that might help you, about forgiveness. I got it from a woman who is a Christian and she councils people on the radio. Her name is June Hunt. She is so loving and you could even call in to her show anonymously if you wanted to.
Here's what she said about forgiveness. She said that you should picture in your mind a big hook. It is God's hook. You decide to take this hurt and anger toward this person off of your hook and put it onto God's hook. Thereby you are giving it to Him to deal with. Forgiveness doesn't mean you can't be angry about it, but it means that you put it onto God's hook, where He wants it to be anyway, and it is no longer your burden.
I really pray that that helps you. I know it does for me when I apply it to my own life.
A verse that goes along with that is: "Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." Mt. 11:29.
See. He wants our burdens!

Tammy| 1.24.10 @ 12:00AM

Crying, you need healing. Contact Project Rachel and they will guide you to a men's support group for grieving fathers who've lost children through abortion.

You need to forgive HER and YOURSELF.

God bless you.

Appleby| 1.22.10 @ 7:02AM

Abortion is not an UNDO button. Once you have been pregnant, you are a mother forever, no matter what you decide to do to your baby thereafter. Think about that. You can be a mother who killed her baby (we used to call them murderers, remember?) or a mother who gave up her baby for adoption by someone whose agonized prayers were that someone like you would come along ... or you can be a mother who courageously cuts her coat to fit her cloth.

And you guys spreading your sperm far and wide, and then dismissing your children as Her Problem (or touting them as trophies to prove you can Put Tab A in Slot B with a reasonable degree of accuracy) -- when your son guns down innocent people or beats up someones mother to steal her welfare cheque, you are to blame. Pants on the Ground, this means YOU.

Tammy| 1.24.10 @ 12:02AM

Brutally honest, Appleby--but honest just the same.

DG in GA| 1.24.10 @ 2:27PM

Appleby, excellent post! As someone who is close to a young woman who gave her baby up for adoption, who thinks of that baby every day of her life, who loved that baby enough to let him go and wish him a happy life with parents who were mature and prepared to care for him, I applaud the succinct way you expressed your point of view. Abortion IS NOT an "undo" button or the "delete" key. Abortion does not mean you were never pregnant.

I will never understand why liberals believe that people are inherently irresponsible and therefore should be excused from the most heinous of choices. Perhaps it is because their liberal heroes (think Teddy Kennedy) are such abysmal human beings.

Liz| 1.22.10 @ 7:12AM

36 years and how many babes sacrificed? It's mind boggling and heaven has everyone of them. I wonder what that will be like for the mother's of those murdered children. Hopefully, some of them if not all, will stand before Christ forgiven but I doubt it. I would hate to be one of them who aren't.

Darin| 1.22.10 @ 7:14AM

When does life begin? When is the unborn child considered a human being and thus should be granted the right to live? Is the child responsible for how it was conceived (rape or incest) and be liable to pay the price?

Abortion relegates a certain segment of society (the unborn) to the status of property, with no rights. It's akin to slavery, except that it knows no boundary for race, religion, or gender. Over 50 million Americans have been killed since 1973. 50,000,000. That's more than 3,000 a DAY. That's 9/11 happening every single day for 37 years.

Tim| 1.22.10 @ 9:11AM

In a State that regulates everything, defines everything, no one on the abortion side seems able to define when life begins. Obama is the best example of this with his "above my paygrade" comment.

Vince| 1.22.10 @ 2:04PM

The reason Obama said "its above my pay grade" is because it was a gotcha question. Obama is pro-abortion and voted to let a baby die that survived a botched abortion. So Obama knew he could not say at the point of concetion or when a baby is born.

victor| 1.24.10 @ 8:14PM

He voted THREE times on that one and the Fourth he voted "Present", which means that he couldn't be bothered to vote.

DG in GA| 1.24.10 @ 2:30PM

Darin: Powerful statistic, and what a perfect way of expressing it! Would the American people stand for even ONE MORE 9/11, much less 37 YEARS of them? We must be the voice for the unborn until their voices are heard.

no name today| 1.22.10 @ 7:26AM

Dear Crying,
I would hope that I am forgiven by Christ. I am a flawed human being and have sinned, but have admitted those sins and asked for forgivness, accepted Christ as my savior and isn't he a forgiving God? Better question, will the abortionist be forgive?

Ryan| 1.22.10 @ 8:14AM

You are forgiven, and can rest in that. There is nothing in scripture that says you aren't.

Melvin| 1.22.10 @ 8:06AM

You know its really something that we as a perceived civilized society resort to such barbarity at a personal level.
For some reason we allow lawyers and black robed sooth sayers on the judicial bench to determine when life begins, and a baby isn't called a baby until after birth, but is called viable living tissue.
I imagine lawyers come up with this legalese to make the abortion process more user friendly. It somehow covers up the ugliness and impersonation of it all.
Fathers are no longer called fathers anymore regardless of being married or not, but have been reduced to mere sperm donors.
Like Rosie O'Donnell once quipped. If I want to have a male image in my child's life I'll go rent
one.
You know, I really didn't appreciate the joy of fatherhood until my grandchildren were born. Don't get me wrong I loved all my children but
observing my son being a father and his interaction with his boys gave me a whole new perspective on life and as a human being.
Being a Grandfather allows us to have the appreciation of creating a family without the stresses of being a husband and father.
Seeing four smiling faces clumsily piling out of my son's vehicle and yelling, "Grandpa" and rushing into the house with the dog in tow to see what goodies Grandma has for them, is what life is all about.
For those of us husbands who have been married to the same woman all our lives know what I'm talking about, and we should pass this knowledge on to young ones.
I guess when we realize our own immortality, we strive to hang onto it, and perpetuate it, because we are but upon this world for such a very, very short time, we need to make the best of it, while we are here.

Tim| 1.22.10 @ 9:13AM

Tiny fish get more protection from the Federal Courts than do tiny people.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 1:41AM

You're a good and wise man, Melvin; your family is so fortunate to have you.

ARL| 1.22.10 @ 8:28AM

Your morality, your opinions, imposed on others by the force of government.

If I required that all of you donate kidneys, bone marrow, and blood by law, forced you to do this, because human life is sacred, what do you think the law would say?

If I required that you donate money -- so much money that it changed the way you lived your life -- because people are dying in Darfur and human life is sacred, what do you think the Supreme Court would do?

You cannot require someone else to follow your own morality. You cannot expect other people to believe as you do. You might be sure, but others are not. The sacrifice you are asking is not of yourselves, but of other people.

You're wrong, maybe not on the morality, but you are wrong on the law.

Tim| 1.22.10 @ 9:17AM

"You cannot require someone else to follow your own morality. "
Ridiculous: all law is codification of morality. This is not "my" morality but the natural law written into my soul by the Creator.
Personal morality is a thing used by people to make excuses for their own failings.

ARL| 1.22.10 @ 5:20PM

Tim wrote: "into my soul by the Creator."

Ah! So you are making me follow your religion then...

victor| 1.24.10 @ 8:28PM

AbortionRightLeague:
"Tim wrote: "into my soul by the Creator."

"Ah! So you are making me follow your religion then..."

God is not a "religion", but a relationship with Him.
God put that Law into everyone's heart, including
yours. It is not His fault if you choose not to
follow his law, is it?
God is the Maker of ALL things and that surely has to include YOU!
We are not forcing you to do anything. If you wish to violate His law, that is your choice.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 9:07PM

Victor wrote:

"We are not forcing you to do anything. If you wish to violate His law, that is your choice. "

Actually, by outlawing abortion, that is precisely what you would be doing... forcing people to abide by your religious interpretation.

This discussion is the first time I've ever heard the notion that "God" is separate from religion because it is "personal relationship." God is a deity, a relationship with a deity is a religious relationship.

Regardless, you are invoking religion as a reason to require behavior in individuals who do not believe as you do. This is forcing your religious views onto others. This is not allowed under law.

Please come up with a non-religious reason why other people should give up their personal freedom to comply with your view.

Ryan| 1.22.10 @ 11:20AM

Does the force of government not require me to keep from murdering someone? Is that not an extension of morality?

ARL| 1.22.10 @ 5:21PM

Extension... but how far? Either life is sacred and I can force you to give up your own body for others, or it is not. Kidney, bones, blood. You are drawing the limitations on what is being asked of you, you are making exceptions to the premise, not me.

Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 1.22.10 @ 3:46PM

ARL, please keep in mind the fact that God will not consult American law before He hands His judgement down. Are you prepared to offer up this excuse for your indifference to abortion on demand on that day? Please think about it.

ARL| 1.22.10 @ 5:29PM

That is my lookout, that is for my own conscience to decide. Do you think you can use the law of the land to save my soul for me?

Isn't your soul equally at risk because you spend money on things that don't sustain your life, when you could give up some of your freedom to save the sick or starving from death?

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 12:07AM

ARL: No one has the right to kill another human being INCLUDING mothers.

We are not talking kidneys or bone marrow here, we are talking about PEOPLE!!

YOU are wrong on the law.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 11:10AM

SoCon:

Please read carefully. Did I equate kidneys and bone marrow to a zygote/embryo/foetus? No.

I suggested that if the rule of law says "life is sacred" and freedom must bow to this rule, then there is no reason to prevent me under that principle from requiring by law that people make organ donations or give lots of money to save lives.

Ergo, "life is sacred" is not an unlimited principle of law, ergo, invoking it to limit personal freedom is not correct under law.

In more concrete terms, we do not force people to donate organs when they did not want to, to give up their freedom to determine the fate of their own bodies, in order to save lives because "life is sacred." No more can you force a woman under law to give up her freedom over her own body.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 6:04PM

You don't get it: It's NOT a woman's own body--it's a distinct human life unto itself. Your analogy is false.

No one has the right to kill another human being including a pregnant woman.

It's LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--remember?

You WERE comparing a human life to a kidney.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 9:14PM

Now, I asked you to read carefully. Let's try again. Here's the comparison:

1) Man with kidney to donate = pregnant woman
2) Patient who will die without kidney = zygote / embryo / foetus

The law cannot force you to donate your kidney to save another person, even though "human life is sacred" because you have the freedom to say what happens to your own body.

A life is at stake, yet the law does not compel you to use your body to save it.

If you think a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term because "life is sacred" then you have to agree that the law should intrude into your body, remove your kidney, and give it to someone who would otherwise die.

Can you imagine how the Supreme Court would react to such a law? Doe's family sues Smith because Smith does not give Doe a kidney and Doe dies?

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 11:32PM

Did you think this nonsense up all by your lonesome or is this some new crazy Planned Parenthood baloney?

Abortion is killing; it's a purposeful act meant to destroy a human life: That's not true about not donating an organ to a person.

There's no way to know if your organ would save that person's life anyway.

Mark| 1.24.10 @ 11:17AM

What do you think the law does? It imposes morality. Murder is wrong; it it is against the law. Stealing is wrong; it is against the law. Lying is wrong; slander and perjury are against the law.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 1:11PM

Not so. Lying is perfectly legal under most circumstances. Perjury leads to injustice; slander injures a reputation.

Many immoral things are legal, like hoarding wealth or using racial slurs.

I think it is immoral to have cosmetic surgery or have luxury kitchens when so many people die for lack of health care or clean water. Yet I do not expect the government to forbid these and force the money to go to saving lives.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 2:10PM

"I think it is immoral to have cosmetic surgery or have luxury kitchens when so many people die for lack of health care or clean water. Yet I do not expect the government to forbid these and force the money to go to saving lives."
~Really? So then that means you'd be against Socialism.. and you would despise Obama's forceful takeover of the private sector forcing millions to lose their jobs. Hmm?

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 4:08PM

Hunh?

It's pretty clear that I've been taking a libertarian stand as regards abortion.

I'm not quite sure why you've flown so off-topic.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 5:07PM

Thanks again for letting everyone see the Libertarian mindset. You have done us a great service.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 6:09PM

Libertarian--all of the rights and none of the responsibilities. Selfish.

The only true freedom is principled freedom.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 7:10PM

SoCon,
God bless you! You say it so well.

DG in GA| 1.24.10 @ 2:35PM

Arl, YOU are wrong. On the morality AND on the law. Constitutional scholars have said repeatedly that Roe Vs Wade is just BAD LAW. There is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, it was invented by liberals to legislate loopholes for bad behavior.

And no, you cannot require someone to follow your own morality. But we are a nation of LAWS and those laws are founded on the Ten Commandments (whether you and your fellow travelers like it or not) and THOU SHALT NOT KILL includes babies.

Ray| 1.25.10 @ 8:24AM

"Your morality, your opinions, imposed on others by the force of government. "

You have it backward, the laws, the policies, the government itself is regulated, controlled, by people's perceptions of acceptable, and unacceptable, moralities. It is We, The People who decide what is morally acceptable, not the government.

When a government, or a branch of that government, begins to define, for us, the limitations and definitions of morality, that government no longer serves the citizens, it controls it. Government can not dictate morality, it can only conform to it. It is the citizens who dictate to the government, and each other, what moralities society can, or can not, follow or allow.

Ken| 1.22.10 @ 8:44AM

"You cannot require someone else to follow your own morality. You cannot expect other people to believe as you do."

What utter nonsense. Because other people with different or no moral convictions steal, commit perjury, murder, defraud, rape and pillage, we have no recourse in law? All legislation inherently involves moral judgments.

If I donate kidneys or bone marrow, I am giving up part of my body, which contains all my dna. If a woman gives birth, the child is not a part of her, it has its own dna.

ARL| 1.22.10 @ 5:35PM

Law is an agreed-upon set of moral judgments.

You may not have noticed that not everyone agrees with you about abortion.

In fact, you don't know what my real opinions on it are, do you? All you know is that I do not think that a blanket law against all abortions is a good idea.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 12:09AM

So, you would have supported slavery, too, right? They were also considered inhuman. Remember?

Fool.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 11:15AM

"Freedom" is a principle of law that should be upheld.

"Equality" is a principle of law that should be upheld.

"Justice" is a principle of law that should be upheld.

Slavery is not permitted under these principles.

You degenerated into name-calling. Typically, this is a sign that you have lost the ability to argue the merits.

The same principles of freedom and equality under the law that prohibits slavery prohibit government interference in personal decisions.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 6:20PM

There are no merits to your argument.

Where are Freedom, Equality and Justice for the unborn? Your dehumanization of the unborn is no different than the past dehumanization of slaves.

Cite one example in our Constitution that states freedom and equality are for only a selective group: Isn't that freedom and justice for ALL? Hmmm?

Where are 'personal decisions' mentioned anywhere?

You have no argument--none. You're just another selfish guy trying to rationalize your immoral behavior. CYA time.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 9:24PM

Being selfish is not illegal.

Don't cast stones, by the way. Unless you live as cheaply as possible and give away everything you own to the poor, you are open to a charge of hypocracy.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 9:58PM

ARL,
Abortion is the ultimate act of selfishness.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 10:15PM

Selfishness is legal. If it were not, cosmetic surgery, expensive cars, and fine dining would all be illegal.

How can you go to a restaurant when people are starving? How many lives would you save if you lived in the cheapest apartment you could find and sent all the money you save to Darfur?

If life is so sacred that we sacrifice liberty for it, then why do we permit wealth?

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 11:11PM

Liberty? In your deluded mind you completely disregard the Liberty of the unborn child. Murder is against the law. Just not for the unborn. In your mind they shouldn't count. Liberty? Some Supremely corrupt and immoral Judges decided to allow the Liberty of the unborn to be snuffed out along with their lives. Who died and made them Kings? Kings! We don't have Kings here.. or do we? And you defend this! You are not for Liberty. The only Liberty you are for is the so-called Liberty of the Mother to murder her unborn child.
And you are proud of that!

stephanie| 1.25.10 @ 7:12AM

Ohhh, you sound like a communist. Live in a cheap apartment? And all drive VW's and wear gray? geeesh

Ray| 1.25.10 @ 8:29AM

"Selfishness is legal."

Oh really? Tell that to the courts when you refuse to pay your court-ordered child support payments, your court ordered bankruptcy charges, or any other court-ordered payments your required to make. I wonder just how well you "I'm not paying them because I'm selfish and that's not illegal" argument will hold up?

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 11:36PM

Ha ha ha! You didn't refute my argument, ARL. Besides, I didn't say selfishness was illegal--did I?

I just said you were a selfish hypocrite--which is too true.

Check-mate.

S.L. Toddard| 1.22.10 @ 8:53AM

There is only one recourse available to those who recognize that Roe was a garbage decision with no constitutional basis: the threat of secession. Honestly, that's all there is - even if we stack the court with pro-lifers it will make no difference. As the great Joe Sobran wrote:

"Peaceful secession was a state’s ultimate constitutional defense against Federal tyranny. Without it, the Federal Government has been able to claim new powers for itself while stripping the states of their powers. Lincoln neither foresaw nor intended this when he crushed secession. But today the states are helpless when, for example, the Federal Courts suddenly declare that no state may constitutionally protect unborn children from violent death in the womb. If even one state had been able to secede, the U.S. Supreme Court would never have dared provoke it to do so by issuing such an outrageous ruling, with no support in the Constitution."

Now that is not to say that I am *advocating* secession. But we conservatives must argue forcefully for the *right* to secede - for the Constitution as a voluntary compact between the several sovereign states (which it factually is), with the states - who ratified the Constitution and thus are the final arbiters as to whether it has been violated - free to nullify un-Constitutional laws and decisions (like Wade), and when reconciliation is impossible, we need to assert our *inviolable* right to self government, and our belief that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Extremely Extreme Extremist| 1.23.10 @ 8:47PM

You are certainly correct on the history and on the principle, SL, but as a practical matter secession is a dead letter (in most cases) these days. Because secession involves the states as geographical entities, only coastal and border states have any realistic prospect of making a go of it, at least alone. Landlocked states would quickly find themselves starved of resources and access to the coasts were they to set themselves up as separate, hostile "nations within a nation."

Consequently, I favor the partitioning of America into two distinct countries, where lefties and righties can respectively reside, each living under the laws it finds pleasing to itself. Let the blues sodomize, abort, tax, etc. each other to their hearts' content, and let us likewise live under the laws we favor. That is the essence of self-government; such a proposal should encounter no resistance in theory, except among those who truly wish to impose their wills upon the unwilling (therefore, in practice, I would expect massive resistance from the blues, whose project would be dead once starved of victims to coerce).

victor| 1.24.10 @ 9:39PM

S. Lee Bailey:
"There is only one recourse available to those who recognize that Roe was a garbage decision with no constitutional basis: the threat of secession. Honestly, that's all there is - even if we stack the court with pro-lifers it will make no difference."

You obviously do not know the Law or the Constituiton.
We did not have nine Scalias, but there were enough of him to overthrow the atrocity known as "McCainFeingold".
All you need is the right case and any ruling will be overturned.
Plessy, Dred Scot and others were overturned when the time had come.

They went they way of all fish; they rotted, they stunk up the joint and then they were summarily thrown out.
Roe will be too.
Kelo, Hamden and other bad decisions will go as well.
Apologies to Sobran, but no secession required. He was a nice guy once, but now he's just a crank.

Affirmative action would have died a well deserved death if certain people did not prevent Taxman from getting to the Supreme Court.
Lawrence v Texas is another such atrocity, though it may have given Liberal Reader a thrill up his leg, it was still a bad ruling based on really bad case law.
The ACLU struck again.
Remember Scopes?

So you see Toddaroni, all you need is the right case at the right time.
Again, no need for any Extra-Constitutional Activities.
You probably would have fit right in at Fort Sumter though, or at Harper's Ferry perhaps?

Tim| 1.22.10 @ 9:23AM

50 million children. How many artists, leaders, inventors and others have we denied life to? How much better would be our country and our world if they were here among us raising their own children?

ARL| 1.22.10 @ 5:38PM

How many murderers, rapists, petty criminals, drug addicts...?

Tammy| 1.24.10 @ 12:11AM

ARL, too bad your mom was pro-life.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 11:19AM

My mom is pro-choice.

You recognize, don't you, that many people who are pro-choice have children? They have unplanned children. They love their children.

They just don't think they have the right to tell other people which choices to make.

Freedom is fundamental. Anti-abortion folks are so sure that their view is the only valid one that they wish to use the power and resources of the government to force others to follow it.

I am arguing for freedom.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 12:37PM

"Freedom is fundamental" Yes it is, and that includes the unborn child in the Mother's womb.
"I am arguing for freedom."
~No you're not. You are arguing for murder!

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 1:29PM

Reasonable people disagree on this point.

Belief is not proof. If you believe that abortion is murder, then you would be immoral to have one. If you do not believe that abortion is murder, you can still believe that it is wrong-- or you can believe that it is wrong only under certain circumstances -- or you can believe that it is never wrong.

However, you cannot expect other people to adhere to your beliefs, and you should not use the power of government to enforce compliance.

The government should not be used to impose the beliefs of one group of people on another.

The trimester-based limitations on abortion are as close to general agreement as we can get. They make no one happy, but they are as close to fair as the law can get.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 1:51PM

Reasonable people are those who agree with God. "Agree with God and be at peace, thereby good will come to you." Job 22:21.
You will have to take up your phony arguemnet with Him, then!

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 2:03PM

We are talking about law, not about religion.

You must come up with a non-religious reasons to support your view. The US constitution prohibits using the power or resources of government to impose religion on the people, as well as preventing the government from telling the religious what they can do.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 2:19PM

Sorry (not) ARL, the Law Giver is God Himself. Try as you may but you won't be able to escape it. Forget "Religion." It isn't a matter of Man's ideas. God is not a Religion, He is God.
The discussion is about the truth about the Law and the laws of the land. The Left tries to pervert everything that is good and given by Him.
The fact remains that Murder is against the Law of God given to Mankind to obey. These are the laws that our laws are based on. It is not your right to try and CHANGE them.. to "impose" your immoral "beliefs" on our country.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 4:15PM

Um... if you don't believe in secular law, why are you on a forum discussing Roe v. Wade, a decision made under US law?

I'm sorry that the entire foundation of the US legal system doesn't agree with you.

You are free to follow your own religious laws in the US, but you cannot expect the government to make everyone else obey the rules that you have chosen.

It's a great country because of that, and I aim to keep the freedom that allows us to choose our own paths.

If you want to work to convince people to follow the rules you believe in, that's fine. You simply cannot require that they do so and use the government to force compliance and intrude in their lives.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 5:05PM

Once again the Libertarian mindset.
Roe v, Wade wasn't even legislated upon. It was decided by Activist Judges. A despicable thing that you in your darkened mind to not object to because you deceitfully call it "freedom."

I wonder~ do they pay you well to come here and spout your twisted bilge, or do you do it just for the fun of it?

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 6:32PM

ARL is just another smug snot, Margie; fool doesn't have a clue. Life will teach ARL.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 6:29PM

I am talking the law: No one has the right to kill another human being including a pregnant woman.

Religion's got nothing to do with it. Nice try, though.

Your premise is flawed.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 9:28PM

Name-calling is a sign you have run out of rational arguments.

If you really believed in the sanctity of life, you'd be marching for gun control and universal health care and peace.

victor| 1.24.10 @ 9:57PM

"ARL is just another smug snot"

ARL is just another smug intellectually bankrupt libertarian.
Would that be "name-calling" or just an accurate description of your persona?

Gun Control?
I thought you were a "Constitutionalist"?
Who does dis-arming the populace serve?
Criminals, the Government, or Both?

Universal Health Care is neither, Universal or Healthy.

And "Peace"?
The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance!
That was not written by libertarians, liberals or socialists.

Pray for Peace, but Prepare for War!

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 10:20PM

I was pointing out the other positions that you must take up if you are 'pro-life.' I was not suggesting that I hold them.

I've still heard no compelling non-religious argument for government intrusion.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 6:26PM

Freedom for whom? Why don't the rights of the unborn matter? Who are you to say the unborn don't have rights?

You're using your power to force your wishes on others--to kill them. Who are you to lecture us?

We have the moral high-ground--you only care about your own naked self-interest.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 9:32PM

I'm arguing that people have the right to choose based on their own self-interest, their religious beliefs, or whatever criteria they deem fit.

What I am arguing is that they have the right to ignore YOUR beliefs when THEY make decisions for themselves.

That includes not agreeing with you about abortion.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 11:48PM

I understand quite well. You are arguing that people have the right to kill babies for convenience. It suits your purpose, just as slavery suited the purposes of people like you hundreds of years ago.

You're not special, you're just a typical selfish and immoral person who will use and abuse innocent people to get what you want. Nothing high-falutin' about you, ARL--you're just morally bankrupt. We get it.

Stop trying to hide behind the 'law of the land' and 'freedom'--that IS nauseating.

I'm just calling you out on your hypocrisy and self-righteous preening and platitudes, moral weather-vane boy. You do amuse.

Ray| 1.25.10 @ 8:31AM

" How many murderers, rapists, petty criminals, drug addicts...? "

None, for those innocent children never violated a single law. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

Tim| 1.22.10 @ 9:29AM

"In the New Town which the Romans called Carthage, as in the parent cities of Phoenicia, the god who got things done bore the name Moloch, who was perhaps identical with the other deity whom we know as Baal, the Lord. The Romans did not at first quite know what to call him or what to make of him; they had to go back to the grossest myth of Greek or Roman Origins and compare him to Saturn devouring his children. But the worshippers of Moloch were not gross or primitive. They were members of a mature and polished civilization abounding in refinements and luxuries; they were probably far more civilized than the Romans. And Moloch was not a myth; or at any rate his meal was not a myth. These highly civilized people really met together to invoke the blessing of heaven on their empire by throwing hundreds of their infants into a large furnace. We can only realize the combination by imagining a number of Manchester merchants with chimneypot hats and mutton-chop whiskers, going to church every Sunday at eleven o'clock to see a baby roasted alive. "

http://www.worldinvisible.com/.....art1c7.htm

Tim| 1.22.10 @ 9:34AM

"Another war was indeed waged before the final destruction: but the destruction was final. Only men digging in its deep foundations centuries after found a heap of hundreds of little skeletons, the holy relics of that religion. For Carthage fell because she was faithful to her own philosophy and had followed out to its logical conclusion her own vision of the universe. Moloch had eaten his children. "

http://www.worldinvisible.com/.....art1c7.htm

Bill| 1.22.10 @ 9:45AM

Ever wonder why some want to take religion out of our culture when it was so strong in the formation of this nation. Fundamentals based on faith and on the dignity of life and the right to life. See if you take away what supports the founding of this nation you take away the reason to protect life in all its forms. I have never bought into that lie and feel the pain of those who have fallen into the trap of abortion. Life is a gift of God and each child is unique with gifts and talents for future use to society. Fifty million and counting and the unintended consequence are the suffering of the participants, the lost talent and possibilities for society and less people to support our country. Now this is aside of the moral issue but it seem to me that if you lose 50 million people in the work force that is 50 million people who can not pay taxes and 50 million more that can't support the entitlement programs.. so hey we need to change the health care system lets now restrict the health care of the elderly and those who are no longer supporting the "system". Their lives have no value any longer. We can save money by having them die early!!!....God will not look favorably at this continued affront.
For the ones who are repentant for their mistake and turn to Christ for forgiveness you can be assured that his forgiveness is there for you. For us to remain silent and not address this murder of innocent children, blood is still on the hands of this country.

ARL| 1.22.10 @ 5:42PM

Slavery was also a foundation of this country.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 12:13AM

And you would have been a slave owner, fool.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 11:21AM

No, I believe in freedom. I think that has been made quite clear.

You are starting to use name-calling instead of reasoned argument. Generally, this is a sign that a debater has run out of rational support for his or her position.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 6:38PM

You amuse me because you're so smug and you don't see the blatant hypocrisy and the obvious conflicts in your argument.

You most definitely would have been a slave-owner because you would have found a way to rationalize your selfish, immoral behavior by dehumanizing them just as you do with the unborn today.

Slaves = Unborn--the lives of both are/were dehumanized by those in power. Those in power like you.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 9:39PM

I do think that when my opponent descends into insults that I have won on the merits.

I'm not selfish, but I do believe that people have the right to be selfish if they choose.

I believe in liberty-- you believe in government intrusion into the personal lives of individuals.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 11:55PM

I believe in justice, ARL--a concept that is obviously quite foreign to you. The right to life is for everyone or it is for no one.

You believe in license not liberty. Maybe someday you'll understand that.

Our Founders understood this--too bad spoiled and selfish hypocrites like you don't.

Ray| 1.25.10 @ 8:35AM

" Slavery was also a foundation of this country. "

No, it wasn't. The foundations of this country was individual liberty,The majority of the States, and VAST MAJORITY of the citizens themselves, never condoned slavery. Most were admittedly opposed to it. We even went to war with the states that did promote slavers in order to stop it, remember?

Tammy| 1.25.10 @ 7:58PM

Correction: Slavery was a foundation of the democrat party. Republicans forced you to stop it.

Rainboskies| 1.22.10 @ 10:18AM

I believe that the number of people who agree with abortion has decreased, is due to the number of women who have had abortions, and now regret the procedure and have changed their opinions. To NO NAME TODAY: Even Paul, the disciple of Jesus Christ, murdered hundreds of Christians, before Christ called him to serve. Forgiveness and redemption is there for those who "call out to His name" These babies, taken from the womb, are, I believe, with Christ Jesus. These are innocent souls living with our Father.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 12:16AM

You're right. The younger generations are more pro-life; perhaps because they are aware that 1/3 of their peers have been aborted.

A majority of Americans now reject abortion.

Peter McGrath| 1.22.10 @ 10:30AM

It astonishes that Blackmun's hackneyed opinion could possibly have been given credence by a majority of fellow Justices. The opinion bases its thesis on the idea of "privacy" (itself a right found nowhere in the Constitution) and prior decisions which applied that concept to invalidate laws circumscribing the availability of birth control.

Deploying this fanciful new "right" on the street essentially meant that men were now able to cajole, harass, threaten and ultimately force their girl "friends" or wives to legally kill unwanted children in the womb.

In this respect, one could nickname Blackmun's legislation "Hefner's Law." Playboys were given license to fornicate at will with their sexual accomplices flushing the occassionally inconvenient unborn child down the abortionist's toilet.

What is one to make of a society that continues to condone such barbarism? Imagine the harm, physical and moral, that Blackmun's appalling decision has done to our nation.

Similar damage was inflicted by Stalin upon the Kulaks (when he ordered the Red Army to steal harvests and collectivize farms, causing 30 millions to die of starvation), and by Hitler upon the Jews and others (where upward 10 millions died in labor camps or death factories).

Neither Hitler nor Stalin ever laid a finger on any of their victims. Rather, they rendered national policy that resulted in the murder of whole populations.

Blackmun's awful, abjectly evil decision caused no less pain and suffering - to the victims and perpetrators, of the latter whose guilt remains a formative experience.

God Bless the Marchers! With God's help, may we stop the wicked slaughter of the innocent and start healing from this moral sickness.

JP| 1.22.10 @ 10:41AM

"It astonishes that Blackmun's hackneyed opinion could possibly have been given credence by a majority of fellow Justices. The opinion bases its thesis on the idea of "privacy" "

Peter,
According to Woodward's account, several members of the majority opinion sent Blackmon's opinion back for several re-drafts -the legal prose was that bad. And then Professor Bork told his student's that if they ever authored a legal paper so poorly written he'd fail them (In 1973 Bork was Pro-Choice). Even today, most legal scholars ignore the opinion itself, while appreciating only the results.

Both Grunwold and Roe were travesties of constitutional law.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 12:17AM

The BS of 'penumbras'. Pantload liberals.

Tim| 1.22.10 @ 11:16AM

If the 50 million had not been killed,
How many of them would have been Dems?
And since the majority of the killed are from the poorer section of the USA it is logical that many more would have been voting dem which may have actually kept the "Kennedy" seat in the Dem's hands. We will never know.

The point beyond the obvious which is that Obortion kills humans is that the very folks pushing it since the sixties have exterminated members of their own political base.

Obortion---wrong ---for all of the wrong reasons!

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 12:20AM

You're right, Tim. I have pointed this fact out to liberals many times--they are causing their own extinction! What goes around, comes around.

Obama could easily have been aborted by his mother.

Fools.

Tony in Central PA| 1.22.10 @ 11:18AM

A couple of years ago on this date, the popular, young priest at my church gave a homily on this subject. He told the story of a young woman in college who met a charming young man. They fell in love and eventually she became pregnant. Finding out she was pregnant, the young man told her he no longer wanted anything to do with her. In the irony of " choice " she ended up at an abortionist office, because she felt she had no other choice. As the minutes ticked by she lost her nerve at the last moment and left the office. Months later, she gave birth to her child. The years passed by and were often difficult, but she raised her child and eventually married a good man with whom she had more children. The priest ended the story by saying, " I'm telling you this story because I was the unplanned baby. Please pray for an end to abortion ".

Louis Jenkins| 1.22.10 @ 12:58PM

The Declaration of Independence was written for the expressed reason to protect LIFE and Liberty. Roe vs Wade, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, threw that reasoning in the can. Communists have set certain goals two being # 29 “Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs,…. and #40 “Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.” (Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963) This goes hand in hand with the Women’s Privacy-Pro Choice agenda and allows wholesale murder to become the law of the land. Any hope that our illustrious District of Criminals will affirm the unborn’s right to LIFE is merely a promise of legerdemain, or hocus-pocus. Indeed, it is now up to the State legislatures and governors to act on the behalf of the unborn.

To those who have posted their personal distress on this site, may Jesus Christ bring you comfort in your time of confession and sorrow. Jesus, standing on the right hand of God, who died a horrible death for our transgressions and rose from the grave, has pleaded your case before the Lord. He died for you, me, and the aborted unborn. His mercy and forgiveness is for anyone who asks.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 12:22AM

Beautiful post, Louis. Thank you.

Northern Rebel| 1.22.10 @ 1:30PM

Since 90% of abortions are had by liberals, they are slowly driving themselves to extinction.

Pat| 1.22.10 @ 1:57PM

As nations clashed in World War II, the human misery inflicted on each other resulted in a death toll estimated at 50 million people. Some died dirctly from combat, some behind barbed wire in concentration camps, some from a new weapon produced through a massive effort by scientists, others died from having their food stolen by invading armies and then being forced into the bleak Russian steppes to slowly freeze to death - and those were merely some of the horrors leading to human death on a scale that to this day remains almost unbelievable.

But while innocent children died from starvation, enemy bombing, freezing, disease, soldiers executing them along with their parents, at least the combatant nations didn't make war on their own children. And, in the end, the guilty perished along with the innocent, some by their own hands, some by enemy action and some at the end of a hangman's rope. But Americans murder their own children in the service of personal choice - wonder what history will decide was a darker chapter in human history, the most destructive war ever waged or America at the height of its so-called civilization.

Liberal Reader| 1.22.10 @ 2:45PM

While liberals are -- of course -- by and large "pro-choice," they are joined by many conservatives.

They are ALSO joined by many Republicans who are happy to swing through the American heartland reaping hundreds of thousands of votes that might otherwise have been Democratic but for this one issue. Those same Republicans, having had their "pro-life" ticket punched, then proceed to Washington, where their central concern is capital gains tax cuts and the unlimited freedom of investment bankers to loot the economy.

Occasionally they'll take a stand, but when do they take a political RISK in favor of the unborn? Not often.

Again, I'm pro-life. I'd like to remind you that 1 out of 4 Democrats in Congress are pro-life. The numbers of groups like "Democrats for Life" are indeed growing, and I strongly support them.

A pro-life stance is for me part of my liberal philosophy, grounded in the need of the government to protect the rights of everyone to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

My friends on the left are many of them in grievous error on this issue: if religion doesn't enlighten them, I hope science does, as we grow to understand more and more about the development of human beings in the womb.

Ryan| 1.22.10 @ 3:20PM

One wonders how many Republicans would jump ship in the heartland if the Dems would be pro-gun, pro-life, and truly cut government spending.

Liberal Reader| 1.22.10 @ 3:29PM

Ryan --

On guns, you'll observe that Democrats have largely abandoned the issue. It doesn't matter how many people are gunned down in their places of work (the justices of the Supreme Court being some of the last Americans who are entitled to a weapons-free workplace) or how many children are gunned down in schoolrooms or on playgrounds: Democrats, like Republicans, won't go near gun legilstation of any kind. It's been that way for well over a decade, and you can be good and sure it will stay that way as long as Obama's in office.

I agree with you on your "pro-life" stance, of course.

As for cutting government spending: maybe if Republicans could have figured out how to cut government spending we wouldn't be in such a mess right now. But I'm afraid Demcorats will go on spending like drunken sailors, just like the Republicans did.

victor| 1.24.10 @ 10:28PM

Hairy Reider:
"But I'm afraid Demcorats will go on spending like drunken sailors,"

Obviously you have never been a drunken sailor.
They only spend their money, not yours.
Drunken Liberals spend yours, mine and everyone else's money.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 11:05PM

Oh honey.. that was GOOD!

Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 1.22.10 @ 3:57PM

Liberal Reader, if you are for real, you are a classical liberal & I agree with you 100%. That being said, I left the Republican Party for the same reason I want nothing to do with the Democrat Party. When it comes to abortion they are just as complicit in this evil as the Democrats are.

Tammy| 1.25.10 @ 7:55PM

Prove your stupid assertion.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 12:25AM

You sicken me, Lib Reader. You try to puff up your 'pro-life' cred while you defend your infanticide loving Obama at every turn.

Disgusting hypocrite--a pox on you and your house.

Liberal Reader| 1.22.10 @ 2:48PM

Correction: 1 out of 4 Democrats in the House are pro-life. I don't think in the Congress as a whole. (I have to check these figures again.)

The latest hero on the right -- Senator Brown -- is in fact pro-choice; the eternal villain, Senator Reid, is (at least nominally) pro-life.

Life's complicated folks.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 12:27AM

Brown will NEVER be our nominee for POTUS. Count on it.

That's not complicated, LR--not complicated at all.

victor| 1.24.10 @ 10:31PM

Hairy Reider:
"the eternal villain, Senator Reid, is (at least nominally) pro-life."

If Harry reid is Anti-Abortion, then why is he fighting tooth and nail to keep Abortion in the Health Care Bill, eh?

Name the 55 Anti-Abortion democrat house members will you?

Margie| 1.22.10 @ 2:59PM

From Scott Brown's website. His stance~
Abortion
"While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion."

Liberal Reader| 1.22.10 @ 3:25PM

This sounds like the standard boilerplate of most Democrats, Margie. To me, it sounds like Clinton's "legal, safe, and rare."

It seems like conservatives are positively EAGER for liberals to be much more zealous in their feelings about "abortion rights" than they actually are.

I don't know of a single person who supports late term abortion. Most who are "pro-choice" are not that thrilled about the issue and wish the number of pregnancies that would otherwise end with abortion could be reduced.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 12:31AM

For once you tell the truth, troll. It IS standard boilerplate and exactly why Brown will never be POTUS.

You idiot--Obama supports late term abortion and even infanticide in cases of babies surviving abortion.

Are you stupid or evil? Probably both.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 11:39AM

Current law requires that late-term abortions are performed only for medical reasons.

People facing horrible tragedy with pregnancies gone terribly wrong need medical help to save their fertility, their ability to have future children. This horrible choice can only belong to the people concerned. You would deny them children because you don't like the procedure that the tragedy has forced upon them.

Government should not be involved in these decisions. You should not be involved in other people's decisions unless they invite you in.

I stand for freedom. Government should not interfere with personal choice.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 6:52PM

I don't know if you're ignorant or just an outright liar but your above post is complete baloney.

The late Dr. Tiller got around 'medical reasons' easily: The young woman usually suffered from 'depression' which allowed Tiller to 'legally' mutilate and kill perfectly healthy full term babies. The AMA states that late-term abortion is almost NEVER necessary. It's common knowledge--at least for us who argue in good faith.

Tiller performed tens of thousands of late term abortions for $6000.00 each--he was a very rich man at the time of his death. A very rich man, indeed.

All of Tiller's blood money can't help him where he is now.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 9:49PM

SoCon wrote:
"almost NEVER"

Which means of course, "sometimes" or "rarely."

Your political views lead you to ignore the rare, but incredibly painful, decisions that some people have had to make. This is insensitive and callous.

From The Guardian (UK) http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl.....e-abortion
"It has always been illegal in the US to perform abortions after viability without a compelling medical reason. In Kansas, for example, where Dr Tiller practised medicine, the law for any abortion after 22 weeks requires two doctors to agree that failure to abort would put the mother at risk of 'substantial and irreversible harm'."

Irreversible harm-- only the person who would be irreversibly harmed has the right to take on that burden. You do not have the right to impose it.

Liberty means allowing other people to make decisions for themselves.

SoCon| 1.25.10 @ 12:04AM

I knew you were a liar!! You cherry picked one obscure article to provide a semblance of support for your non-argument. And it was so nebulous it failed!

Research a little more--if you dare--and you will see that Tiller routinely tortured and killed THOUSANDS of perfectly formed, near term babies every year.

The mothers weren't ill, just regretful--even Planned Parenthood admitted it.

You stand for license not liberty; most selfish hypocrites do.

Aaron| 1.22.10 @ 3:55PM

it has been determined by law that an unborn is considered a human being...consider the law that states if a pregnant woman is murdered, the defendent is charged with two counts of murder.

Bob| 1.23.10 @ 4:38PM

Actually, Aaron, you are wrong in your assumption. The law assumes a "potential" human being. You've taken away the right of the woman to control her own body. That's why the law exists and it does not conflict with Roe.. That's why people who are pro-choice support that law. The whole idea is that the woman should be able to make her own decisions -- not have you or anyone else take that away.

Margie| 1.23.10 @ 8:11PM

Aaron is absolutely correct. If a man murders a pregnant woman he takes 2 lives.
It is not ANY woman's right to murder her unborn baby. The law may allow it, but God's law does not. It is still murder!

Bob| 1.23.10 @ 8:51PM

Which god, Margie? The Jewish god? The Muslim god? One of the Buddhists gods? They've all got different views of this. Or are you a bigot who believes there is only a Christian god?

Margie| 1.23.10 @ 10:10PM

The God of the Bible. He is the only true God. There is only one True God. The One who made you and the One you have to stand before when you die.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 12:43AM

Man, I'd love to be a fly on a wall in Heaven that day!

Look out, Bob!! The ONE TRUE GOD looks down on atheistic bigots like you.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 11:41AM

If you believe this is the case, why are you so dead-set on getting the government to enforce your belief?

Why not leave it to God?

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 12:25PM

ARL,
I am leaving it to God. God commanded "Thou shalt not murder." Therefore His law is King. It is the reason why murder is against the law. Abortion was against the law until some despicable Supreme court Judges decided they would be King and changed it. Did you know this?

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 1:40PM

The discussion is about law imposed by the government. It is unconstitutional to use government resources or power to impose religious laws in the US.

Contrary to beliefs held popularly by the religious right, US law is not the result of the ten commandments, but is largely our inheritance of English law.

Also, your knowledge of history is incomplete.

Abortion was legal for a very long time. Laws against it in the US began appearing in the mid-1800s.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 2:02PM

The Law from God, was before English law. It is the Law of God given to mankind, and there is no escaping it. Your knowledge of "history" really ought to include that! You spout the typical Leftist view pretending to know it all as they all do, when in fact you know nothing. Our laws are based on Biblical principles and Murder is against the law of God and Man.
It is only the perverted Left that has tried to change it.
Looks like you enjoy being a part of the downfall of this great Nation.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 2:18PM

No matter how strongly you insist on imposing "God's law" in the US, you run up against the fact that our constitution forbids this. God must impose God's law, the government must only impose the law of the land.

In addition, please stick to facts. The fact that our law is derived from English common law is well-documented historical fact. I'm sorry that this angers you, but as the recently-coined saying goes "Reality has a liberal bias." (OK, so in this case it has a libertarian bias.)

And you have descended into name-calling (e.g. "perverted left"). This is a sign you have run out of rational support for your opinions.

I am for freedom. Freedom to make choices based on personal beliefs, and freedom from the interference or intrusion of the government into individual choice.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 2:23PM

The Left is perverted, and so are your arguments!
You spout the Libertarian view which is, in truth, Leftist! You have done a very fine job of exposing the Libertarian leftist belief system for all to see, and I thank you for doing such a fine job!

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 2:44PM

Exactly what have I "exposed?"

I have stated what I believe. You find those beliefs appalling, apparently.

You have accepted religious limitations on your behavior. Fine. You cannot impose those on me through the law.

I believe in freedom. You believe in God. Give unto Caesar...

Now you're going to claim that God doesn't limit freedom... all the while arguing that the government should do so on His behalf.

Bob| 1.24.10 @ 9:53AM

Well, Margie, I see you know nothing about comparative religion. Mulims believe in the "one true god" as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 12:13PM

That's right, Bob. I couldn't care less about Religion. Neither could the God of the Bible. If you cared about the truth, you'd know that. Religion can't save you. Only Christ can.
"Jesus said to them, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me." Jn. 14:6. There is your answer. Only Christ died for the sins of the whole world. And God rose Him from the dead. He overcame Sin and Death and is the only One who has the power to forgive your sins. If you choose to reject Him you will be lost for eternity. "He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of the only Son of God." Jn. 3:18.
Who needs to "study comparative Religion?" What a waste!

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 2:28PM

Margie wrote: "Religion can't save you. Only Christ can."

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Discussion of abortion law often ends up being a religious argument-- it is entirely misplaced. Religious beliefs might be the motivation for most abortion opponents, but they provide only heat, and no light, to the debate.

When we require religiously-inspired debaters to provide rational arguments based on something other than unprovable beliefs, they often turn to pseud0-science, drawing conclusions that "DNA" as somehow indicative of legal rights.

Surely you can do better? Tell me why freedom should be curtailed! And do it without citing the Bible.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 2:40PM

For you to have a rational argument it would have to throw God away. This is not rational. The freedom you espouse is not freedom at all. You espouse immorality calling it freedom which is a lie. Sure, without God in the equation abortion would be just fine. That is if you have no conscience (given by God), and if there was no God!
Your Libertarian Leftist views can be summed up by a warning to all who read here:
"They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved." 2 Pe. 2:19.
There is no freedom in a Nation without laws. Read your history. Where immorality reigns there is only utter chaos.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 4:23PM

Um... I take it you believe that the US and western Europe have been in chaos for almost four decades? While those places where religious law holds sway, the Middle East and large parts of South America, are doing just fine?

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 6:56PM

ARL, you have no argument as my prior posts have pointed out.

Freedom and justice have to be for everyone or they're not for anyone. You're just a modern day slave-owner, but you're worse because you kill.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 9:55PM

That's quite an accusation, Marcie. You might want to think about that a bit.

In fact, you do not know how I feel about abortion at all, you only know that I think outlawing it is unconstitutional.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 10:30PM

No need to think. I try and line my thoughts up with God's thoughts. Anything else leads to insanity.. like your views. You see, Liberalism leads to immorality which leads to lawlessness, which Libertarians want. It leads to utter chaos. No laws=chaos. That is the opposite of freedom. You do not have freedom with immorality and lawlessness. As the Bible states, you may promise freedom, but you will be a slave to the immorality which you practice.
Why? Because God says so. He made us to be "upright." When we go against that it is impossible to have any kind of real peace.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 10:30PM

Oops, that was SoCon who made the accusation. My apologies, Marcie.

He or she has also accused me of being a "slave-owner" and "smug."

I'd like to point out that I have accused no one of any wrong-doing, I have not insulted anyone, and I have not gotten personal.

I've merely defended Roe as a good decision in law. Many, many people agree with me. They are not evil people, they just believe differently from you.

It is important to treat the people you disagree with respectfully.

I have tried to do so.

Peace, and goodbye!

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 10:42PM

Well goodbye ARL... like water off a duck's back.
Come back again sometime.

SoCon| 1.25.10 @ 12:08AM

Yeah, come back real soon--like never.

ARL, try to treat the innocent unborn respectfully--wouldn't that be a lovely concept!!

Ran that little pest off. One down, so many more to go.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 9:36PM

Bob,
True that Muslims believe in what they believe is the one true God. But just because they believe that doesn't make it correct. Bob, be honest, would the True God condone blowing people to smitharines? Once you get honest with yourself on that one, you can proceed to the next logical step/conclusion.
But will you?

Bob| 1.25.10 @ 9:45AM

Well, Margie, would a "true god" condone killing 6 million Jews? Hitler claimed he was a Christian. What about the Crusades? What about the skinheads? What about Scott Rader? What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? You will lose that argument, Margie. Killing others happens because individuals lack morality -- not because they belong to a particular religion.

Margie| 1.25.10 @ 11:52AM

Bob,
Here's why mankind is fallen, Bob~
"There is no one that calls upon Thy Name, that bestirs himself to take hold of Thee; for Thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast delivered us into the hand of our iniquities."
" Is. 64:7.
The world is in utter chaos because they don't call on the Name of the Lord.

But as 1 Cor. 14:33 says: "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace."

There is only one way to have real peace, and to be able to discern right from wrong.. first to recognize the greatest thing that ever happened in history: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." Jn. 3:16.
(Don't think Religion, think Truth, fact.)
"For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified." Rmns. 10:4.
"..because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. The scripture says, "No one who believes in Him will be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows His riches upon all who call upon Him."For, "every one who calls upon the Name of the Lord will be saved." Rmns. 10:9-13.
I implore you by the love of Christ Jesus, the love that He has for you, this person~Bob.. for the sake of your soul and for your childrens souls: do it now! "Seek the LORD while He may be found, call upon him while He is near." Is. 55:6.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 12:35AM

Pleease!! Bob, selfish male bastards like you squeal about womens' rights but you're really just covering your own backsides.

You don't give a damn about women, you just don't like dealing with the consequences of your own selfishness.

Abortion is just a sweet matter of convenience for creeps like you.

Bob| 1.24.10 @ 9:56AM

SoCon, I have three daughters. They are grown now, but they can tell you that if anyone even looked at them in the wrong way, they were in trouble with me. You really don't know what you're talking about. I always told my girls that they could do anything and were not limited by their gender. They have all succeeded BOTH in business and as mothers handsomely. If you weren't so dumb, I'd have a real discussion with you.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 6:58PM

I know you have three daughters, that's why it shocks me so much that you're such a huge abortion supporter.

Lucky for them that they got through!

Bob| 1.25.10 @ 9:48AM

SoCon, what makes you think I "support" abortion? I would much prefer someone give their baby up for adoption if for no other reason than abortion is dangerous for THEIR health. But I believe in liberty and the right of individuals to decide moral issues for themselves. Just as I don't want you to legislate YOUR religion on me, I don't want to force people to follow my morality.

SoCon| 1.25.10 @ 7:52PM

You're always all over the pro-life threads, Bob-- and I think that's quite unseemly for an older, well-educated family man like you.

Why do you care so much? You're not going to get knocked-up anytime soon are you?

Mark| 1.24.10 @ 11:25AM

She's not controlling her body. She is destroying the baby's body. The baby is a genetically unique organism. It is a separate entity from her body.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 2:36PM

You can never get around choosing one over the other. The problematic fact is that it is both separate and not separate. If it were separate, it could be separated and thrive on its own.

Only a woman has the final say on this. Only she ever should.

Intrusion of the government into this personal, difficult decision is unwarranted.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 2:52PM

If you didn't destroy the embryo it would be able to live! How inane can you be?

Here you have the "reasoning" of the Libertarian mind.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 4:28PM

Margie wrote: "If you didn't destroy the embryo it would be able to live."

Please get your facts straight. By "live" I conclude you mean "survive on its own." Zygotes and embryos could not. The point of fetal viability has been getting younger and younger due to better and better technology for premature birth.

John II| 1.24.10 @ 6:38PM

Whoa! I haven't heard the "viability" argument in years. There is no known organism that can "survive on its own." All organisms are dependent on an environment appropriate to their natures.

Heck, even you couldn't survive, ARL, if you acquired a bigger head than you've already been displaying and decided to prove your absolutely independent survivability by, say, parachuting naked from an airplane flying over the Arctic tundra.

You have insulted my intelligence. If I weren't such a coward, I would demand an immediate apology!

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 7:05PM

Geez, you're as funny as ever, John II!

ARL's smug snottiness is only exceeded by his faulty reasoning. Must be nice to know everything.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 7:01PM

Who says only a woman has the final say? You? Why, because she has a uterus? I never knew that my uterus gave me license to kill.

I just would like to know who decided this.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 9:58PM

Exactly. Because a woman has a uterus, it is she who gets to decide.

Just as you, because you own your kidneys, get to decide that you will not donate one to save a life.

Please address the "life is sacred" argument above. Can I force you to donate a kidney if a life is at stake?

I think not. But if you think abortion should be illegal, then you have to agree that the government can force you to donate an organ.

SoCon| 1.25.10 @ 12:17AM

I did address your silly idea: Not donating an organ to a stranger who may not survive anyway is NOT, I repeat NOT, a purposeful act of killing. Aborting your own child who is totally dependent on you to survive IS! Your argument is as false as it is absurd.

You're dehumanizing a certain group of people today just like slave-owners and slavery did yesterday. Admit it, liberal--you would have owned slaves.

Ray| 1.25.10 @ 9:01AM

"Because a woman has a uterus, it is she who gets to decide"

A woman may have a uterus, but there's no way a uterus can produce a child on it's own. The theory of spontaneous pregnancy died out centuries ago. Why should a women get to decide which of her children lives or dies simply because she has a uterus? There's no way she can produce a child on her own. It's physically impossible.

Ray| 1.25.10 @ 9:43AM

"Just as you, because you own your kidneys, get to decide that you will not donate one to save a life."

ARL, a woman doesn't own her child. That child is not property. It can' be "donated," it can't be "sold" it can't be treated as just another possession.

An unborn child is a unique individual. There has never been another quite like it. There will never BE another quite like it. It is unique, it is special, it is ALIVE, and it should be treated as such.

That child, that unique individual, should be afforded the same rights, the same privileges, as those of it's parents, it's relatives, it's neighbors, yourself, and everyone else who exist in this society. When will you be willing to accept this and stand up for the rights of that child?

John3| 2.3.10 @ 6:39PM

ARL, you are right on one point: the baby is DEPENDENT on the mother up to the age of viability. If you define dependency as a requirement for being "not separate" then they are "not separate." However, being separate or not DOES not decide who has the final say. Because the mother ALWAYS can survive (sometimes she does die from an abortion) does not mean she is the final decision maker. We all started as a single celled fertilized ovum-unable to protest or speak for ourselves! What would you say if you were that ovum in your mother's womb? The obvious answer is that nobody has the right to decide to kill another human being--unborn or born.

However, I do agree with your last statement: "intrusion of the government....is unwarranted." Yes, that is why Roe Vs. Wade (cloaked as a privacy law for women) should not have been enacted. Government should not have agreed that it is legal to kill an unborn child. GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT GRANT RIGHTS TO INDIVIDUALS THAT ENCROACH ON OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS! That is what Roe vs. Wade is.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 8:39PM

In the greater scheme of things how can you NOT choose LIFE over CONVENIENCE?

I must stand for the innocent unborn--they cannot stand for themselves.

Billye| 1.22.10 @ 3:58PM

Dear No Name Today: I feel your pain, as avid pro-lifer, I have learned from studies the after affects of this decision. I spoke to my church congregation on Life Sunday about the Truth of Life in God's Word, with one truth standing out for those who have had a abortion, Jesus died for ALL sins even the sin of abortion.. God grant you the peace and mercy He extends to all HIS CHILDREN.

Yosemeti Sam| 1.23.10 @ 12:45AM

Recall the Notre Dame self-blemish of catering to
the removal of reportedly Christian symbolism -
to accommodate the 'appearance' of BHO.

In the movie " The Ten Commandments",
Moses offered words to the effect: who is on the LORDs' side ....

Is the LORDs' side with the Pro Choicers?

Don't think so.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 2:38PM

We're talking about the law of the land.

Government should stay out of religion, and visa-versa.

John II| 1.24.10 @ 6:41PM

"visa-versa"? What on earth does your credit card have to do with the issue under discussion?

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 7:06PM

LOL!

Gotta be a college kid, no adult could be that smug.

Ray| 1.25.10 @ 9:53AM

" We're talking about the law of the land."

It's interesting that you mention the "law of the land," for it is the Constitution that states "Congress shall make no laws concerning an establishment of a religion, (and here's the important part) nor the free exercise thereof" . Yet despite the Constitution being the Supreme Law of the Land, here we have federal courts, created out of an act of Congress, violating the very law of the land itself by PROHIBITING the free exercise of religion by banning the display of religious symbols on PUBLIC lands!!

Congress itself has created the very courts that violate the Constitution,and they have done NOTHING to correct that violation!

jann| 1.23.10 @ 4:00AM

Abortion is just another form of genocide. Pray for God to open their eyes.

Bob| 1.23.10 @ 4:42PM

jann, I guess you'd say that mastubation is just another form of genocide and so it a woman's period. So, I take it you also object to IVF? After all, the result of that is the destruction of fertilized human embryos.... Why don't I see any of you asking for a law against IVF?????? Hmmmm.....

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 12:37AM

You're post is so stupid I'm speechless.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 1:37AM

...Your post is so stupid....

Mark| 1.24.10 @ 11:26AM

You are one classy guy, Bob.

Ray| 1.25.10 @ 8:40AM

"I guess you'd say that mastubation is just another form of genocide and so it a woman's period."

Bob, when you can produce a living human child out of nothing but sperm, then I may agree with you assertion of hypocrisy. Until then, I suggest you go back to school and pay better attention in biology class.

Bob| 1.25.10 @ 9:52AM

Try producing a living human child without sperm. Perhaps you should go back to school. Now why does the Catholic Church not support contraception? You need some religious training.

Ray| 1.25.10 @ 9:58AM

What are you talking about? Your equating abortion with ejaculation! That makes absolutely no sense at all!

Of course, you goal isn't to argue for or against the merits of abortion, is it? No, it's an attempt to create a strawman argument. Too bad for you it's a LOUSY strawman argument as it's totally stupid!

Ray| 1.25.10 @ 10:01AM

By the way, Bob, it takes more than just sperm to create a life. And a menstrual discharge isn't part of the process.

Ray| 1.25.10 @ 10:09AM

"So, I take it you also object to IVF? After all, the result of that is the destruction of fertilized human embryos.":

Actually, Bob, those embryos are frozen in liquid nitrogen, they're not destroyed as you claim.. They can still be implanted in a host mother and grow to maturity, even years later.

SoCon| 1.25.10 @ 8:18PM

Bob's a crazy old crank: Try to reason with him at your own peril.

Yosemeti Sam| 1.24.10 @ 1:24AM

Jann,

"Abortion is just another form of genocide. Pray for God to open their eyes. "

Indeed!

Consider the 'miracle' of just 2 complementary
'cells' united in the female womb and initiating
DNA-termed specific natural processes at the
sub-atomic/spiritual level to achieve - LIFE!

Warning words from the Bible:

" ... What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
St Matthew ch. 19, v. 6 ...."

2 cells united in singular purpose: a fundamental purpose not to be sundered at any point of progression - by mankind.

SCOTUS Judges, past and present,and pro choicers who continue to facilitate/enable the putting asunder of naturally conceived innocent lives in wombs - will have a HOT time explaining their legal briefs for abortion someday before the HIGHEST JUDGE.

Inexorably - some day!

SoCon| 1.26.10 @ 4:58AM

You're one of the lucky ones, Daniel--you got to live.

Pity that so many millions didn't.

Daniel T| 1.24.10 @ 7:29AM

As a man, I don't feel like I should even be commenting on this. But here goes: Abortion used to be illegal. That meant that women who wanted an abortion had to get it done illegally and often poorly. Sometimes they died from it. I'm pretty glad that it is legal to be honest. I don't think anyone wants to have an abortion. But sometimes people are in a really tight spot. And this way at least the women who have one don't have to fear for their own life. That is good enough for me.

Bob| 1.24.10 @ 9:58AM

Even though women voters outnumber men, Republicans have many more men than women. If that is not de facto proof that the party wants to restrict women's rights, I don't know what is...

Neolibertarian| 1.24.10 @ 10:43AM

The reversal in fortune of the recent political races hinged exclusively on government intervention and fiscal restraint. Failing to recognize this will only lead to buyer’s remorse in 2011 and 2013 when all those “Brown” candidates actually proceed (with mandate) to vote their conscience. This denial syndrome affects the fringes of both parties, and only seems to be evident to the real upcoming force in politics, those, like myself, in the middle. The new savior from the Bay State clearly, unequivocally, and in print states; “Abortion is between a woman and her doctor; had he not been adamant about this he would not have been elected. Catholics, Union members, and democrats were all needed to provide Brown’s margin of victory and they certainly do not reflect those currently reveling over the perceived “spoils of a partisan war.” The reason the booty is referred to as “spoils” will be become very evident, as will the definition of “Republic,” with the first vote tally in 2010 concerning a social issue by the new “champions.”

Bob| 1.24.10 @ 3:08PM

This is also why Brown's reelection will be problematic. The bigots like Margie will push an abortion litmus test and in the Republican primary, Brown will lose. You can't be pro-choice and win in a Republican primary these days. Just ask Tom Ridge.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 3:14PM

I thought that name calling was reserved for those who have lost their arguments?

So let's see.. Bob would vote for Scott Brown, then?

Bob| 1.24.10 @ 3:40PM

Margie, I'm just using the dictionary definition of "bigot":

"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

Doesn't that define your position on Christianity? I am tolerant of you as long as you don't force government to use your religious rules. You have certainly proven you are not tolerant of other religions or beliefs.

Yes, I would have voted for Brown because he is a fiscal conservative and pro-choice. He is closer to my position than any of you.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 4:25PM

Well then Bob, God commands Man to "Have no other gods before Him." So I guess you would call Him a bigot too? He also says He is a consuming Fire for those who don't believe in His Son. (Jn. 3:18), so I guess you'd have to say He's pretty intolerant, too. If you wish to call me a bigot in that respect then ok, I welcome it!

As to Religion, it is a set of ways that Man sets up to "get to God." But the Bible says there is only one Way. It is through Christ Himself. "Jesus said to them, I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father, but by Me." Jn. 14:6. You can't know Him by following rules and regulations. But you can indeed know Him by falling on your knees and begging for the forgiveness of your sins with a promise to give Him control of your life from this point on.
"And it shall be that whoever calls on the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Acts 2:21.
"But to all who received Him, who believed in His name, He gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Jn. 1:12 & 13.
Jesus became the sacrificial Lamb for us and no longer is Religion needed, because we can't possibly make ourselves good. Religion was the Old Testament way, and now ~ "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." Gal. 5:1.
Religion is a yoke of slavery. No man can withstand it. Jesus says "Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light." Mt. 11:28-30.

John II| 1.24.10 @ 6:45PM

"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

You mean . . . someone like . . . Bob?

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 7:14PM

Yes, but at least we're honest about our partisanship--Bob lies. I'm not a liar.

Bob| 1.25.10 @ 9:54AM

A bigot calling someone a liar???? That's a laugh.

SoCon| 1.25.10 @ 7:41PM

Bob, you're a lying bigot and a bigoted liar, what do you think of them apples?

Margie| 1.25.10 @ 12:47PM

My stance on Scott brown was that I would have voted for him.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 7:13PM

You're right, Bob! No way, no how will Scott Brown EVER be our candidate for President. Count on it.

Massachusetts elected him--I didn't.

Mark| 1.24.10 @ 11:31AM

Married mothers are predominantly Republicans. By your reasoning this is "de facto proof" that the unselfish amongst us are Republicans.

Come to think of it, it's true. Conservatives give far more to charity than Liberals. Your goofy thinking, Bob, may have stumbled onto a little lesson for you.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 12:17PM

For a man who is supposed to be good with numbers, your reasoning is that of a second grader, Bob.

Bob| 1.24.10 @ 3:06PM

And Margie, you have absolutely no reasoning, just a belief in the god of Christians, but not the god of all of the others in this world. And Mark, data also shows that the primary reason for that is that their husbands are Republicans. When they get divorced (over half of them do), they become Democrats again. That shows they are really RINO's....

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 3:19PM

Actually Bob, that's God, not a god. There are zillions "gods" all made up by Man. They aren't even living so they can't save anybody. The Creator of the universe is the God of the Bible. You know, the one you said you sent your children to Catholic school to learn about? Now why would you call me a bigot when here it is you send your children to a school to learn about God? Does that sound "reasoned" to you?

Bob| 1.24.10 @ 3:45PM

YOUR god is made up by "man" as well. I am not a bigot and believe that a grounding in religion is important for children because kids don't discuss morality in school. That's why I took them to CCD. It would not have made any difference to me whether is was Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim. When the kids came home, we discussed comparative religion and ethics. I also didn't care about the religion of the people they married. I consider my children among the most ethical people out there.

By the way, I consider it important for people to read all major religious books in all religions since the bigotry of fundamentalists like you is something that will not go away soon.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 4:35PM

Read all you want. Knowledge about false Religions is fine to be aware of, and I have read plenty. But don't neglect the Source. If you want to know God, read the Bible. It tells you how to find Him. I posted just a tiny glimpse of it, above.. Now if you are a reasonable man, you would not say that the God of the Bible is made up by Man without having investigated Him. Have you done that? Have you done what He asks of you? Do you even know or care what He asks of you?
King Solomon said "All this I have tested by wisdom; I said, "I will be wise"; but it was far from me." Ecc. 7:23.

John II| 1.24.10 @ 7:18PM

"By the way, I consider it important for people to read all major religious books in all religions since the bigotry of fundamentalists like you is something that will not go away soon."

That's the most bigoted remark I have ever heard since . . . since . . . well, since my last faculty meeting anyhow. Owing to your primitive mode of articulation, Roberto, I am guessing that I know a tad more about the smug topic of "comparative religion" than you. Hell, I have to teach it in several of my courses.

And I can attest that the whole field is shot through with the rationalist bias of contemporary anthropology, its pose of scientific detachment laughable. Indeed, among the lesser gerbils who inhabit that little world, the field itself is a seething cauldron of bigotry, little more than an excuse to promote the religion of naturalism among dimwitted undergraduates.

Let not the pot be referred to by the kettle as black. I have spoken.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 7:32PM

Your last faculty meeting? Well, Bob did go to Harvard you know. Close enough.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 8:09PM

:^)

Bob| 1.24.10 @ 3:50PM

By the way, Margie, if your god is "living", perhaps you can get him - not his "representatives" - to give a speech about some of our current events. Net neutrality might be a good subject. If not, he is certainly "made up by man".

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 4:28PM

Bob,
He's given us plenty of speeches. Everything you need to know is in the Bible Especially concerning the only Way to Heaven.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 4:32PM

And there is a good deal about "smiting" in it, too.

God killed all the Egyptian firstborn. Numbers, 33:4.

Not exactly the ethical model I'd follow without question.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 4:39PM

But aren't you the one who says abortion is a "right?" And yet are judging God?

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 10:05PM

Yup, I'm judging God.

It's a good thing this is America, because I have a perfect right to do so.

Are you planning to argue it was OK to kill all the first born of Egypt? You'd have a tough time selling everyone on the 'life is sacred' premise if you do.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 10:14PM

Well ARL, you have made your choice to judge your Creator, as if you are God, and you created Him.
"Woe to him who strives with his Maker, an earthen vessel with the potter! Does the clay say to him who fashions it, 'What are you making'? or 'Your work has no handles'?" Is. 45:9.

John II| 1.24.10 @ 7:23PM

"Not exactly the ethical model I'd follow without question."

But you don't question the abortion mills, ARL. But then, I've never met a libertarian who didn't sound like a child of his times.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 7:30PM

Libertarians like ARL were the slave-owners of yesterday--they could rationalize anything if it served their purpose.

They were moral weather-vanes then and they are moral weather-vanes today.

I don't know what to say about Bob.

John II| 1.24.10 @ 8:10PM

I do. But my Catholic Christian faith requires that I remain silent on the issue.

On the other hand, anyone who writes "data is" instead of "data are" is clearly a bigot.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 8:42PM

Figured you were a Catholic boy. You guys always made me laugh in Catholic school--ALL TWELVE YEARS OF IT!!

No wonder I'm touched.

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 10:09PM

You can condemn abortion all you like, you just cannot use the government to force your beliefs on other people.

I think patients who choose abortion have as much right to their opinions as you do. I also think they have the same rights over their own bodies as you do.

Get it? The same as you. Not less than you.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 10:20PM

So then, following your logic, because murder is against the law, you believe that is the government forcing others' belief on you?

John II| 1.24.10 @ 11:01PM

Yeah--I get it. I shouldn't have the right to push my troublesome mother-in-law down a flight of stairs, and your girlfriend shouldn't have the right to waste the inconvenient consequence of her slippery lifestyle, so to speak. Fair is fair, I always say.

SoCon| 1.25.10 @ 12:24AM

ARL, you would have made a great slave-owner. It was you democrats who promoted slavery and we republicans who forced you to stop it, after all.

Things haven't changed a bit--you selfish, soulless liberals still seek to oppress some vulnerable groups of people today--and we're still trying to stop you.

Moral weather-vanes.

Ray| 1.25.10 @ 8:49AM

"You can condemn abortion all you like, you just cannot use the government to force your beliefs on other people"

But isn't that just what the pro-abortion people have done, used the power of the federal and state courts to impose their beliefs upon us all that an unborn child is not human, is the property of the mother and, therefor, has no rights? That is what occurred.

SoCon| 1.24.10 @ 7:09PM

Why don't you care about babies' rights, Bob? After all, they have the most to lose.

Out of sight, out of mind?

Margienet| 1.24.10 @ 7:16PM

Actually Bob, that is de facto proof that there are plenty of manly-men in the Republican Party. :^)

John3| 2.3.10 @ 7:00PM

Abortion, as served by Planned Parenthood and similar institutions, actually IS a restriction of women's rights. You would be well served by researching how they treat their clientele: by misinformation ("its not a baby, just a blob of tissue."), deliberate non-disclosure of information (abortionists perform ultrasounds to determine the age of the unborn child but will not show this to the mother) and coercion (abortion is preferred, they will not encourage anybody to go to a center that will help the mother HAVE the baby---and yes! they will tell you that having your baby adopted is the most horrible thing you can do to yourself). When a pregnant women goes to one of these clinics, they are not given much choice except to have the baby aborted. So, prolife people (and many Republican men and women are pro-abortion!!!!!) do not want to retrict women's rights, we actually offer them more choices!

Ray| 1.25.10 @ 8:47AM

Daniel T, there's no way you can justify an immoral act simple because some women decided to violate the laws and then then claiming they were being HARMED it the process of violating that law. Had those women not violated the law, they odds of them being harmed were as low for them as the women who never had an abortion.

What you're suggesting is that a law should be overturned if anyone who violates that law may be harmed in the process. It's equivalent to saying that drunk driving laws should be overturned because people who violate the law and drive drunk can, and have, harmed or killed themselves. Do you really think that's a reasonable argument?

It's not the law that's at fault, it the people who violate the law that's at fault.

SoCon| 1.26.10 @ 4:56AM

50,000,000 dead babies later and it's good enough for you.

You're one of the lucky ones, Daniel--you got to live.

Pity so many millions didn't.

John II| 1.24.10 @ 8:40PM

Um . . . where IS everybody? Did you all just get pooped out? I was just warming up. I hope this doesn't mean I have to get back to work!

SoCon| 1.25.10 @ 12:33AM

Yes, ARL is pro-tolerance, just like the democrat slave-owners of yore.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 9:21PM

I'm back. I was just thinking about Bob. Bob, wherever you are.. you can be nasty but I venture to say that you are more tolerable to me than that ARL character. John II, am I being too nice?
Bob, perhaps there is hope for you! Not because I say so. No, but because there is hope for us all. But you do have to choose to not reject Him. Are you willing, perhaps?

ARL| 1.24.10 @ 10:10PM

I am pro-tolerance, too.

Margie| 1.24.10 @ 10:16PM

Yes but do you tolerate God, ARL?

John II| 1.24.10 @ 10:52PM

Except, of course, in the case of benighted religious types trying to force their beliefs on everyone else. Or something.

John II| 1.24.10 @ 10:56PM

Pro-tolerance, my ass. I never heard of such nonsense. All you tolerate is what the culture has told you to approve of, such as state-sanctioned murder. Get a life! And now back to "The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp," one of the greatest TV series ever produced. Boy, those were the good ol' days, when men were men and a ten-dollar cigar cost a quarter.

SoCon| 1.25.10 @ 12:29AM

Ha ha!! The smug little snot finally got to you!

Man, self-righteous, liberal prigs; if they could only see themselves as they really are.

Liberalism is a mental illness, as evidenced by the posts of ARL. What swill!

SoCon| 1.25.10 @ 12:31AM

I liked The Rebel, too. Johnny Yuma--now there was a man!

John II| 1.25.10 @ 9:59PM

Yes--I remember. But the show lasted only two seasons, as I recall, late 50s to early 60s--in other words, during the last two years of Wyatt Earp. Nick Adams, who played Johnny Yuma, was a troubled young man. One of his first flicks was "Rebel Without a Cause," the James Dean vehicle preceding Dean's death in an automobile accident. Adams had become a close friend of Dean's and was devastated by the loss--probably because Adams's own hero was James Garfield, the James Dean of the 40s, just as Steve McQueen became the James Dean of the 60s--partly because Nick Adams never quite made it to his apparent career goal of becoming the new James Dean. He had "a drug problem," as the expression goes, which finally killed him in 1968, at the age of 37. I did indeed like Adams in the Johnny Yuma role (and loved the Johnny Cash theme song), but I always think of him as a kind of prelude to the sixties, when fifties prosperity finally morphed into sixties self-indulgence and the social and political consequences that we're still living with.

In any event, you've tripped my wire. I am obsessed with older movies and the pattern of social change they reflect--and addicted to the fascination of watching whole lives pass before me: e.g., John Wayne from 1930 until 1976, from his first movie as a 23-year-old to his last as a 69-year-old dying of cancer. Rather like literary history.

SoCon| 1.26.10 @ 3:59AM

One of my favorite movies was, "Splendor in the Grass" with Natalie Wood and Warren Beatty. They both were so physically beautiful right then--it was a snapshot in time.

The movie itself was beautiful; the colors and scenery were lush and quite striking, as I recall. The sexual mores were rather strict and Wood's character suffered real consequences for her dalliance with Beatty.

It was definitely a pre-1960's era mind-set.

I have three older sisters and often they included me in their sisterly gabfests (If our mom approved), and I grew up loving my sisters' music, latest dance steps and movies.

I grew up in the sixties, but I will always love the fifties because that time and sensibility remind me of my darling sisters and how I wanted to grow up fast to be just like them.

BTW, I've often driven by the place James Dean died--on Highway 46 in Central California, Steve McQueen grew up in Boy's Republic (a home for troubled youth) not far from my older brother's home and John Wayne's yacht was moored near my sister's home in Newport Beach. Weird.

Sadly, Natalie Wood died too young near Catalina Island--she will always be one of my faves.

And Warren Beatty is still a huge jackass!

Talk about tripping a wire--what a blast from the past.

John II| 1.26.10 @ 5:08PM

When the promoters came out about five years ago with a chunky DVD collection of Steve McQueen flicks to honor the 25th anniversary of his early demise in 1980 (cancer probably induced by constant skin exposure to fuel in his car-racing hobby), one movie--arguably his best and surely the best of its type--was conspicuously missing from the collection: "Love with the Proper Stranger," co-starring Natalie Wood. The flick came out about 10 years before Roe v. Wade, and the plot simply assumes (along with a culture that hadn't yet lost its moorings) that abortion is a grave evil.

The movie still isn't available on DVD, and the VHS remainders are VERY pricey. That too says something about the culture. I wonder what ARL's views of censorship would be on THAT issue.

SoCon| 1.26.10 @ 6:10PM

ARL's a pipsqueak, I couldn't care less what the little doofus thinks. Honestly.

No wonder our country is in such a mess.

Now, back to important matters: Love with the Proper Stranger! I definitely remember that movie and I loved it. I believe I fell in love with Natalie Wood the actress when I watched 'Splendor' and cemented my fandom forever with 'Proper'. I miss here even today.

What an expressive face she had, her beautiful brown eyes spoke volumes. Hollywood starlets today pale by comparison. I loathe Hollywood now--their movies stink and they're a bunch of perverted communists--YUCK!!

It's still a mystery what happened to her on that boat that cold, dark night; Christopher Walken had something to do with it for sure.

Abortion IS a great evil, we have merely lost our way. God help us.

John3| 2.3.10 @ 7:06PM

Tolerance is not a virtue. Tolerance can be a very bad thing. Tolerating a painful surgery to obtain healing is very good. Tolerating thieves to rob your house isn't. Tolerating the killing of innocent unborn children isn't right. Besides, abortion catches up on you too. Soon, nobody will be young enough to pay the taxes for your Social Security benifits. Think about it--all for the name of Mr. Tolerance.

amy| 1.24.10 @ 9:41PM

We need a pro-life president! Romney in 2012!

SoCon| 1.25.10 @ 12:30AM

Hmmm. Which Romney are you referring to? He tends toward the slippery, you know.

work bag| 1.24.10 @ 11:02PM

I agree, pro-life president is needed.

John3| 2.3.10 @ 7:11PM

Hey, guys, this is really CHANGE I can LIVE FOR!
The way I see it, this Administration is making CHANGE that we can all DIE from. Let us hope that we can put all our differences (Democrat, Republican, Protestant, Atheist, Muslim, Catholic, Agnostic, etc....) aside and agree: LIFE IS GOOD, MORE BABIES, MORE CHILDREN IS GOOD. Death, Abortion, Dead Babies....very BAD, extinction of the American people.

John3| 2.3.10 @ 7:11PM

I forgot to say: We do need a pro-life President.

J. Ring| 1.25.10 @ 6:42AM

I oppose baby murder.

Ray| 1.25.10 @ 9:25AM

The abortion debate falls into two categories: those who feel that all people have the same rights, even unborn children, and those rights can never be supersede by another person's rights; and those who feel that the mother's rights supersede those of her unborn child.

How can anyone propose that one person's rights supersede another person's rights? That's antithetical to our very notion of individual, inalienable rights. Yet this is exactly what Roe Vs Wade concluded, that a mother's right to privacy supersedes her child's right to it's very existence!

Roe vs Wade concluded that individual rights are not universal but, instead, are relative! That one person's rights can supersede the rights of another! That ruling, in a single stroke., has destroyed the very concept of individual, inalienable rights itself. When your rights become relative, they become meaningless!

How can any abortion supporter insist that the rights of a mother supersede the rights of her own child? That doesn't make any sense. There's no such thing as a relative right.

Roe v| 4.6.10 @ 4:04AM

Still WrongDVD to Walkman is worthy of being recommended for users.
DVD To Walkman
Best DVD Burner

asdfads| 5.6.10 @ 10:50PM

Flip Converter is a professional Flip Video Converter to help you convert Flip video, you can use it as Flip HD video converter and Flip MP4 converter. Supporting all Flip camcorder models, it can also function as Flip Ultra converter and Flip Mino converter.
Flip Video Converter

mili8951| 5.8.10 @ 1:43AM

http://www.edhardycawholesale.com/

Auckland hotels| 12.7.10 @ 5:02AM

at 36 is he crazy??

Converse| 8.11.11 @ 10:42PM

is good

yaz class action| 10.22.11 @ 1:46PM

my family ask me what spectators all about. i told them this is very good informational site useful for research.

yanyan| 10.10.11 @ 10:46AM

Wow, excellent data regarding this issue. You might want to let me know how long will it take? Because I like to write the thesis or may be it would be nice to detect the thesis writing service. Thank you very much.
mesothelioma attorney

malibu real estate| 10.11.11 @ 1:17AM

Have you ever considered creating an e-book or guest authoring on other sites? I have a blog based on the same theme if you're interested.

wow| 10.17.11 @ 11:21AM

Thats very nice way of asking question, you have got your point.
actos lawsuit

L Tod Schlosser| 11.4.11 @ 11:30AM

I was very pleased to search out this web-site.I needed to thanks on your time for this wonderful read!! I definitely enjoying every little bit of it and I've you bookmarked to take a look at new stuff you weblog post.

yanyan| 10.11.11 @ 2:17PM

This is a good post. This post gives truly quality information. I’m definitely going to look into it. Really very useful tips are provided here. Thank you so much. Keep up the good works.zoloft lawsuit

yanyan| 10.12.11 @ 8:26PM

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment.
Yaz lawyer

Rinah| 10.17.11 @ 5:19AM

An interesting blog. I was mainly interested in the blog just to improve my French when I first came across it, but ended up enjoying!

spot price of silver

ruth| 10.17.11 @ 8:40AM

i love this blog so much and i want more topic for this.thanks

silver spot price

fiance visa| 10.17.11 @ 8:42PM

Brilliant post and useful information…I think this is what I read somewhere…but I don’t know with your experience…

fiance visa

creamer| 10.19.11 @ 8:10PM

I definitely learned a lot from looking at most of your earlier posts in addition and chosen to drop a inquire into this!
actos lawsuit

love| 10.20.11 @ 5:27AM

I really enjoyed reading your articles. This is truly a great read for me. I have bookmarked it and I am looking forward to reading new articles. Keep up the good work.
Actos Cancer

yanyan| 10.20.11 @ 1:27PM

here is the awesome blog thank you my friend you share it here awesome keep Up this blog

accident attorney dallas

devourment| 11.4.11 @ 12:44PM

im very sory i like this blog so much thank you..i will keep touch in here,,

L Tod Schlosser

PIERCE| 11.8.11 @ 2:39AM

Congratulations. Extremely impressed with the excellence of the knowledge offered.
filipina girls

chester| 11.11.11 @ 1:12AM

nice topic i search this at google but i found this blog with helping my friend..thanks i got this blog now keep it up..
zoloft lawsuit

Perfect !!!| 11.14.11 @ 3:39AM

I strongly agree that starting up a website takes patience and engaged, continuous involvement with your audience and neighboring communities.
mesothelioma lawyer