The American Spectator

Appleby| 7.15.10 @ 7:12AM

Californians are so busy trying not to drown that I am not so sure they have time for esoteric debate.

gypsy| 7.15.10 @ 9:17AM

There's nothing esoteric about this debate: the same hatred that compels Barbara Boxer to support baby killing also drives her to support an out of control government robbing us at gunpoint and destroying our jobs, to say nothing of letting illegal aliens piss on our borders and thumb their nose at our laws. Where does this hatred of hers come from? My theory is that she's been this way ever since Dorothy dropped a house on her sister

robert | 7.15.10 @ 9:58AM

You are quite witty. Too bad there is so much truth in what you write. We have become a society of death more so than most third world countries. We just couch our killings in terms like "quality of life' and "reproductive choice."

Deborah| 7.15.10 @ 12:06PM

... and don't forget "compassionate care."

RCV| 7.15.10 @ 12:55PM

...or "collateral damage".

lakewoodbob| 7.15.10 @ 7:10PM

Just watch out for the winged-monkeys and have your buckets of water ready! The people of California now have a good chance to rid the country of this reprobate: don't waste it!

Eric Cartman| 7.15.10 @ 10:11AM

Since the busy Californians are the ones responsible for their garbage scow sinking, I'm not so sure anything will help next to scuttling the craft and hoping salvage price can buy them a new dingy. Tragedies are fun to watch, no?

Occam's Tool| 7.15.10 @ 1:46PM

Killing future working Californians is not a good long term solution to the budget problem in California. Not so esoteric now, hmm?

UpChuck.Liberals| 7.15.10 @ 10:09PM

Actually, the killing is mainly among those that she proclaims to care for, the Black and the Hispanics. How better to keep them under control than to kill their babies under the guise of freedom. Typical Liberal BS.

ds80| 7.15.10 @ 7:54AM

What is esoteric about the murder of an innocent child?

coal carrier| 7.15.10 @ 8:17AM

I believe that Madam Boxer should be sent a pack of condoms to reminder her when life begins.

Eric Cartman| 7.15.10 @ 9:25AM

ZING! BULLS-EYE!

Anthony| 7.15.10 @ 2:52PM

I think Madam Boxer needs to be aborted in November, once and for all. Babies will finally have a fighting chance when Boxer is sent back home, permanently.

Mike Rogers| 7.18.10 @ 3:05PM

If her foot is partially in her mouth (default position), is it still OK to kill her career?

dac| 7.15.10 @ 8:49AM

The Left Coast is just that...very hard for the outnumbered conservatives in California (and there are many) to overcome the population centers and virulent socialism of the coastal cities.

The modern Demon party is, fundamentally, about three things: baby killing, confiscation of private property, and destroying the U.S. military. Everything--absolutely every single major policy position puked forth by our African dictator "president" and his apologists--flows from these three principles. Boxer is of course one of his worst and most aggressive whores for such principles. But awful as she is, there is a LOT of money behind her, and her puppety repetition that Fiorina is an "extremist" might be all that's necessary to keep her wretchedness in office.

One other thing: most Californians can't be embarrassed. They are beyond (or beneath) it. They truly, truly can't understand how or why anyone would live in parts of America east of Interstate 5, and they believe they are simply better and more enlightened people. Again, this is not the view of an angry and silenced minority (e.g., farmers, ranchers, hopeless small businessmen swimming against the tide, the military). But it is the majority view and it's very hard to overcome.

And yes, I did live in California for 8 years so I know the joint all too well.

Rmm| 7.15.10 @ 10:18AM

dac
I can attest to this. You left, we're stuck here.
But the amazing demographics of CA are such that red counties far outnumber blue counties, but too many lefties live on the coast.

GregA| 7.15.10 @ 12:10PM

I've lived in Calif. all my life and yet I don't understand how the coastal counties became so freaking liberal. They clearly got all the prime real estate in Calif.

Richard A| 7.15.10 @ 2:56PM

The late, great Mike Royko of the Chicago Tribune explained the liberalism of the west coast. The great dream of American history has been "go West, young man"! So the maddest dreamers went the farthest west until they hit the Pacific Ocean and couldn't go any further. And there they are, to this day.

MikeBee| 7.16.10 @ 11:47AM

I am also from CA, having lived there for about 35 years, before moving to the Midwest. They are liberal for two reasons: 1) the home of the television/movie industry is Los Angeles, inviting artists and entertainers to live there. Most artists and entertainers are largely ignorant of politics, but very empathetic and sympathetic folks, so, liberal-leaning. 2) Too many wealthy people live near the coast in CA. Most wealthy people are largely ignorant of politics, but want to be seen as being generous and thoughtful. Therefore, they also lean left. Combine the two, and CA becomes a blue state.

Phil Mole'| 7.15.10 @ 11:28AM

California is so far to the left-& out of touch, THEY SHOULD BE ANNEXED TO MEXICO.

Martin Owens| 7.15.10 @ 11:48AM

Isn't there something in the Geneva Convention about that?

Deborah| 7.15.10 @ 12:27PM

Nice broad-brush ...

wolf| 7.15.10 @ 1:27PM

your a bit late...former mayor of los angeles declared ..."...Los Angeles is a mexican city.."

now you cant argue with that..can you..

Jack Kinch(1uncle)| 7.15.10 @ 1:59PM

They are slowly. We have never been mis-led by such an anti-American as Nomobamadama. They have used our taxes to create many 'special interest groups. 47% pay no income taxes. The demo 24/7 committee has put the word out to push 'racist' and 'the rich' to create as enemies of the people.

John II| 7.16.10 @ 9:19PM

California WOULD be annexed to Mexico if the La Raza types had their way. But the radical Hispanics are already outnumbered (and outgunned in smarts) by the (generally pragmatic and competent) Asians now swelling the census figures, and multiplying faster than the chic radical Hispanics, who breed with the same fastidiously contraceptive mentality as their white liberal intellectual cousins.

Demography isn't everything; but it's one helluva lot more consequential than whatever is least important in politics.

Bill Hussien O'Stalin| 7.15.10 @ 8:57AM

Barbara Boxer ranks right up there with Hitler, Lenin and Mao in the annals of human holocaust.

They also have something else in common.

Their utter disdain for the individual.

canuckistani| 7.15.10 @ 9:55AM

In the words of RR: "there you go again". Who are you kidding with these comparisons? She is one of 100 senators, no executive power, and zero control over any vote - including committee if the quorum wants to proceed. Roe v. Wade, until it is overturned, is the law of the land. Get over it. This rhetoric is clouding our chances and continues to alienate a large segment of society that is pro-life, but also is pragmatic enough to know forcing women underground is probably less desirable.
Last time I checked, Boxers' elections were fair and square compared to the three men you mentioned. And if she's defeated, it will also be fair and square.
If Fiorina wins, we have more to fear about her record of job creation than her stance on abortion, and ironically I vote GOP. She was a job killer, just like Romney.

If Santorum is so effective, why was an abortion constitutional amendment not written by him? Give me the citation if I am mistaken. Answer: it's a losing proposition, as are gay marriage bans and any other segregating law. He lost to a pro-life democrat, but also to a pragmatist that the voters wanted over him.
I don't think availability of abortion influences its rates any more than availability of handguns affects the crime rate. Does it? You can chuckle, but you've compared a nothing senator to a rogues gallery of infamy....moral equivalence is lazy.

Chuck| 7.15.10 @ 10:18AM

Roe v. Wade may be the law of the land, but partial birth abortion is not. And Roe v Wade does not promulgate abortion throughout the land via federal financing and so forth. Neither does it allow for indiscriminate abortion -- if it did, there would be no local laws to argue over. Sorry, my friend, we are not going to just roll over on this one. Law is not always morality, and some of us choose morality -- it's just not your morality.

canuckistani| 7.15.10 @ 11:08AM

I agree. I want restrictions, partial birth is senseless killing, as are many 2nd and third trimester abortions. I do understand, however, the left's approach is identical to the NRA's to guns. No concessions, means no wedge, means no erosion. Every cause needs its extremists.
My problem was this site's writers equating Mao and Lenin and Hitler to anybody in current US elected office. Bad, lazy rhetoric, and entirely unconvincing - especially to the 98% of voters that do not follow these blogs and start to engage politically as they line up and vote on e-day.
Why Hillyer continues to entertain contributers with such narrow scope is clearly intended to incite equally narrow readers.
I am clearly against Demint in that I prefer a GOP majority over 30 true believers - any day. 60-80% of platform execution is better than zero, unless the new math is not clear.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.15.10 @ 11:19AM

If it was so unconvincing and didn't ring true you wouldn't have wasted your time responding to it.

Further it's a fair comparison. Barbara Boxer is a statist and believes in the states right to end human life.

At that point it's only a matter of degree. In fact, Barbara Boxer and her political tribe are responsible for the destruction of more human life then Hitler. If there's any unfairness in the comparison it's unfairness to Hitler.

dac| 7.15.10 @ 11:26AM

Sorry, Canuck, I must have missed the part of the Bill of Rights in which the right to Partial-Birth Abortion "shall not be infringed." Point that out for me, please.
The NRA isn't perfect, but they do a fine job of supporting the 2nd Amendment, and they have always resisted weakening of laws prohibiting felons, etc to own guns. They've supported the efforts of cities and states to lock up gun crime offenders (forget the name of that program--very successful in Richmond, VA). Analogizing defense of an actual Constitutional right to defense of baby-killing is ridiculous.
Standing on first principles and losing elections makes little sense, I admit, but without such principles there is zero chance that there will be a GOP majority in the first place. See, e.g., 2006--conservatives rightly deserted the GOP and GW once it became clear that the administration had turned unserious about all of the critical issues of the day. The RINO principle of "can't we all get along" is more surely a GOP killer than anything that Jim DeMint has ever advocated.

scratch n sniff| 7.17.10 @ 11:36AM

Interesting. The illegals have "Anchor Babies" that give new lives to families and our "freedom living chillin' " are killin' their potential support 'for/in their old age' providers.
Maybe we just need teach our young to ensure a quick "end of life" ending!
Oh!
We've already done that with the Obama plan?
OH! My bad; I'll just wheel back in the corner, here; quietly, BEFORE you decide a lobotomy is a potential accelerator to my end.
Some smells under this paper, dude!

Ted| 7.15.10 @ 1:02PM

Not so fast, canuckistani. Santorum lost to Bob Casey, Jr. Schumer and the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee selected Casey because he was "wink wink" pro-life, but would vote reliably for the Democrats. Even on pro-life issues. Look at Casey's record. He's pro-life in name only.

However, you are correct. Moral equivalence is lazy, and as bad as Boxer is, she's no Hitler, Lenin, or Mao.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.15.10 @ 1:10PM

Nazism was nothing more then statism and was antithetical to the individual and reduced the value of human life to a political policy of extermination.

After the war there were war trials where all who endorsed the policy were convicted and executed.

No, moral equivalency is not lazy or incorrect if the shoe fits. It's being intellectually lazy to state there is no connection when there is an connection, an absolute connection.

It's the statist disdain for human rights and individual rights which connects Nazism, Communism and the American progressive. They all suffer from the same disease and there is an absolute moral (perhaps immoral) relationship.

Good Captain| 7.15.10 @ 1:09PM

Fiorina may not be the specific antidote to the current joblessness but I don't believe she will continue Boxer's stance of tax hikes and increasing regulatory burdens which have completely sapped the economic recovery we have had of new private jobs.

brutus6| 7.15.10 @ 3:24PM

Hey Ca-nookie, while I agree with you on the Hitler/Lenin/Mao comparison, your "fair and square" statements about Boxer the Baby Killer don't seem to "square" with your accusations of Fiorina being a jobs killer. Romney, maybe, if he enacted job-killing tax and spend policies while governer of MA. And certainly Babs the Baby Killer doesn't seem to have ever met a tax increase or onerous reg of the private sector she didn't like. But Fiorina has never held public office. How could she have voted for job-killing legislation if the closest she came to elected office was her brief stint as a McCain advisor in '08?

canuckistani| 7.15.10 @ 5:11PM

She killed jobs at HP, botched the Compaq acquisition and saw the company stock drop over 50% during her tenure. Then she was fired.

As for the senate, there’s very little in her history to suggest that her nature and experience would lend themselves to an insular and compromise-driven institution like that chamber.

And you just answered the wildcard question: she has no experience legislating. What the state needs is low-key effective policy builders, willing to deal with the minutiae of government. She will be a bust.
That's how operators like Reid and McConnell get the top jobs....stuffy lowkey lifers.

livinginsiliconvalley| 7.16.10 @ 12:39AM

I am afraid this is correct. She is a failed business executive. How does this make her a good Senator? I dislike Boxer's policy positions on all the major issues, but she is a master mechanic of plitics. I wish there was a third choice but there is not.

Don Carlson| 7.16.10 @ 6:19AM

Is it possible we have had too much compromise? I'm not a Californian, but it seems to me that if Boxer were to be replaced with jockeyshorts it would still be for the better.

dw| 7.15.10 @ 9:59AM

How have we become a nation where abysmal people like Boxer are actually U.S. Senators? Condoning murder in the name of women's rights is a shameful position and the fact that women will ignore their nature as nuturing child protecters for an intellectual dogma proposed by self absorbed contrarion radicals like Senator Mamm is a further bad omen for our country.
She and all like her are worthless human beings as their walk through life is littered with unborn children.

merlin| 7.15.10 @ 10:17AM

The Culture of Death is so accurate. Liberals generally support abortion and are opposed to capital punishment. They are willing to kill the most inocent of us but hyperventilate if a state wants to execute a murdering thug. How does one hold these two views without his head exploding?

RCV| 7.15.10 @ 1:02PM

I guess in the same way rightists do in valuing the life of an unborn fetus more than they do a child who is already born, but who needs food or medical care or whose parent is unemployed and whose benefits ran out, or the innocent civilians killed in "collateral damages". What I see are people who are "pro-life" right up to the moment of birth.

DAgny Taggert| 7.15.10 @ 1:53PM

Kinda like Lefties are pro-choice right up until the moment of public education/health insurance/gun ownership/hire the most qualified candidate without regard to race or gender.....

brutus6| 7.15.10 @ 4:09PM

Rarely mentioned among these pro-life, and a few somewhat pro-death posts: adoption. Agencies have waiting lists of carefully screened, two parent families eager to adopt children of women with unplanned pregnancies. I've known people on those waiting lists. I've watched a few of those adopted babies grow, graduate high school and enter college. One such agency has been my favorite charity for over 20 years, ever since I saw a film on abortion - body parts of mutilated babies, PBA babies with collapsed skulls, and tiny little babies with fully formed hands and feet who would fit in the palm of your hand and once had beating hearts (I usually agree with OldeFarte, but not this time). Next, follow JC McCarthy's lead to help prevent Octo-moms from becoming Octo-moms.

MacWell| 7.18.10 @ 6:48AM

RCV makes an interesting point, but points his/her finger in the wrong direction. RCV?, how do you evaluate the fact that it's been the left that has been the job killers in CA, and the rest of the country for the last 50 years. You do remember jobs, you know, those places where the parents of those kids who are in poverty can go to every day, do some work, and get a paycheck, and maybe even medical benefits. Your problem is that you, and the rest of the lefties, think it's better for a parent to be on welfare, and collect a pittance, rather than a job, wise up!

RCV| 7.19.10 @ 11:54AM

I don't accept for a moment your premise that "it's been the left that has been the job killers in CA and the rest of the country for the last 50 years."

KyMouse| 7.15.10 @ 10:39AM

Boxer and her colleagues are silent about the fact that at least six out of every 10 abortions are not the woman's choice at all, but are the result of pressure from the baby's father, her own parents, or others. Murder is repeatedly listed as the leading cause of death for pregnant mothers.

In 2004, a criminal-profiler told a Washington Post reporter, "If she goes away, the problem goes away." One example: Rae Carruth, formerly of the Carolina Panthers, was convicted of conspiracy of murder after several men open fire on the car of Chirica Adams, who was pregnant with Carruth's baby.

In many countries, unborn baby girls are killed before birth because boys are preferred. Even in this country, some immigrants choose to abort their baby girls for the same reason. When will Boxer speak out about that?

Women deserve better than abortion. And every child deserves a chance.

Oldefarte| 7.15.10 @ 10:50AM

I am a born/raised/educated Catholic that supports REASONABLE [early, certainly not PBA] abortion; and the reason I do is because of the ultimate carnage resulting to the born children. I would easily support eliminating abortion IF additionally, the government/state would legislate the confiscation of children born to indigents unable to financially care for/support those children until the age of 18. The one/only/primary focus of this debate should be on the welfare of the children, and allowing children to be born/raised by indigent imbiciles results in a 100% likelihood of those children being raped, abused, becoming drug addicts, uneducated, etc. If abortion [as a last resort form of birth control available to pregnant indigents] is eliminated, then government has to implement legal steps to take possession of the birthed children and to thereafter ensure their safety/survival until 18!!!!!

canuckistani| 7.15.10 @ 11:16AM

Sad but truthful assessment.
I hear very little from the anti-abortion extremists on what "options" they will support when a woman chooses to not terminate a pregnancy. All cost $$$, which equals taxes which equals big government.
I believe in freedom: freedom to screw up and freedom from oppression and freedom from zealotry that is unfounded on fact.

richard2010| 7.15.10 @ 12:17PM

It is called accountability. Why should it cost $$$ to the tax payer? Of course, your response will be that I am not sympathetic to the plight of the child born out of wedlock, without financial support from the government. Well we already had that debate and in the 60s the great society determined to provide welfare assistance to the woman and her child born out of wedlock. Look at the results 50 years later. The liberals will point out that a small percentage of those children born out of wedlock went to college, subsidized by the government, and have turned out well. The conservatives will point out that a high percentage of those kids, without the reinforcement of a mother and father, are in jail and have no opportunity to contribute to society. Take your pick on which result you want.

BTW, prior to the great society, it seemed that the public sector contributed enormously to charities. What makes you think that the public will not step up again? Get the government out of our lives.

KyMouse| 7.15.10 @ 2:15PM

Canuckistani, there are more than 4,000 pregnancy-care centers in the U.S., mostly staffed by volunteers who are eager to help mothers who are considering aborting their babies. Volunteers provide a wide range of services, right down to mowing the lawn and doing grocery runs.

Why not pitch in? Even Canada must have similar havens. And those centers would do an even better job if more people would donate to them or stop by every so often to see if there is some chore that needs doing.

Ultimately, we must start teaching men and women that they have responsibilities as well as rights. A mother's first responsibility is to the child who depends upon her for his/her very life. And a father's first responsibility is to the children he has helped create. Our society focuses almost exclusively on rights, and the babies (born and unborn) suffer for it. Killing them is not the answer. Many mothers who considered abortion during their baby's early development change their minds later and actually become good mothers. And many couples are eager to adopt babies whose mothers cannot or will not care for them.

Oldefarte, one cannot tell whether a child born to a poor, single mother will never rise above his/her circumstances. I know people who have had a terrible start in life, but have gone on to become productive and good people. I'll bet you know some, too.

How can you tell which child doesn't deserve that chance? Is there an economic threshold below which an unborn child should be killed?

One more point: You're against partial-birth abortion but not early abortion, even though every child goes through the same development process? Why is it all right to kill the child during the earlier stages, but not later on? It's the same baby.

canuckistani| 7.15.10 @ 5:28PM

I live in the US but familiar with Canada.
Canada has no abortion law, and the rates of teenage, adult, and all gestational stages is LOWER than the US. The percent of late term abortions is also lower or similar to US stats. Why?
State mandated education programs are more widespread. Contraception is as available, and social supports are more available if the woman chooses to take the child to term. Abstinence programs are uniformly and rationally discarded by school systems and a direct approach is taken to the objectivity of sexual relations and their outcomes. The other difference: fewer blacks. Take blacks out of US data, and you have similar rates to Canada. Perhaps that's the outlier we are all afraid to confront.

Don Carlson| 7.16.10 @ 6:42AM

It is true that American blacks contribute a wildly disproportionate measure of failure to the statistics. It should not be un-cool to say this. Black American politicians say it all the time as they scream that white America is to blame for the failure of blacks.

But most black Americans do not fail, do not depend on the government for their survival, do not commit crimes against anyone, and do believe in the principles of freedom and responsibility for the individual citizen. Those people of color in American who have failed have been helped to do so by the damned leftists who claim to love them. It is the learned dependence of these and other Americans that the clandestine socialists hope to change America toward---they're the same people who bring us 'abortion as the most effective method of birth control,' 'freedom from religion.' Oh, and they hope to change of democracy into bureaucracy---it's more efficient, you know.

James Custer McCarthy| 7.15.10 @ 2:14PM

I live in Florida, and ride the bus. One day I sat behind a pair of high-school girls and overheard this conversation: (1)"I'm trying to get pregnant." (2)"Why?" (1) "Then I'll be able to quit school and go on welfare. That's what xxxx and yyyy did." (2) "Wow! That's a great idea! I want to quit, too, but I don't want to get a job!" (1) "Well, that's all you have to do. You'll be set for life!" (2) "Sounds good to me!" ~~ This exchange really happened, but I had to paraphrase it because I don't speak ghetto vernacular or want to use some of the words they used. I was shocked. I had assumed that the 70% out-of-wedlock births and fatherless families among blacks were entirely the fault of the irresponsible males involved. I guess I was naive; perhaps because I did have a great father who took the time to instill in me proper respect toward women, families and our society. Oldefarte is right on the money about negligent mothers, absentee fathers (or should I say 'sperm donors'?), and the impact on our society and economy by those who are 'gaming the system'. While I cringe at the thought of the cost of government doing what he suggested, I think that the Welfare Department should combine with Child and Family Services and investigate those applying for welfare who are young, able to work, and have children who are unmarried. I also think that those already on welfare should be required to have no other children, and to become pregnant while on welfare would cause the end of their right to receive welfare. Too many unmarried women continue to have more babies simply because each one increases the amount welfare pays them. This is, in reality, planned child abuse.
But to the subject at hand, I wonder how many future presidents, scientists who might solve some of our problems, or other geniuses have been thrown in the trashcan in the name of "convenience".
I wonder, also, if the Rt.5 in CA mentioned here is near the major fault lines in CA. We can only hope that it falls into the Pacific when The Big One hits.
Barbara Boxer, along with Pelosi, Reid, and their ilk are poster children for term limits on Congress. If eight years are good enough for our president, they certainly should be good enough for Congress.

Paul D| 7.15.10 @ 2:35PM

The conversation you overheard refers to "Liberation Day." I recommend you read George Gilder's seminal work on this subject - "Men and Marriage" (Originally titled "Sexual Suicide"). I don't remember whether Gilder coined the term "Liberation day," or whether it is a ghetto phrase.

thomasmoremom| 7.15.10 @ 10:10PM

Oldefarte
Respectfully, you are not a "practicing" Catholic if you support abortion. Your "quality of life" "reasons" for aborting these children is tantamount to eugenics.

Vinny| 7.15.10 @ 10:58AM

Good one Gypsy!

loulou| 7.15.10 @ 11:21AM

Just make sure you call her SENATOR Boxer. She worked so hard for that title.

WRTolkas| 7.15.10 @ 11:38AM

Gypsy has emerged as a source of acid wit. I do hope Republican speech writers are taking note. And I'm glad Gypsy is on our side.

On a very personal note, my daughter had a baby a few months ago. She is in a relationship with the baby's father, and they are to marry very soon. My wife and I were advised by a close family relative to have the child - terminated (murdered). I will not go into detail of his thoughts and his family. He is a staunch democrat - a card carrying member of the party of death. This beautiful baby boy is happy, healthy, and a joy to our lives. Abortion is death to a child. I don't care what appendage is still inside the mother. Barbara Boxer's name should be forevermore linked with the same horror and revulsion as josef mengela.

Finally, I just read that Federal funds for abortion will be available in Pennsylvania. Anyone know about this?

Remember November 2nd!
WRTolkas

I tell my acquaintances: "If you vote democrat in the next election, don't bother to talk to me again."

geokster from TX| 7.18.10 @ 6:17AM

"Finally, I just read that Federal funds for abortion will be available in Pennsylvania. Anyone know about this? "

Yes, Glen Beck ran this story last week, he mentioned New Mexico has also accepted fed money to get set up for federally funded baby killing.

The point he (Beck) was driving home was in reference to Obama's Executive Order reassuring Rep. Bart Stupak that the Feds wouldn't fund abortion in order to buy his vote for health care. I doubt the ink was even dry on that Executive Order before Obama, Pelosi, and Reed were colluding over how much stimulus money could be diverted to state run abortion mills.

Don'cha just hate it when the POTUS looks you square in the eye and lies to you? I mean,,, deliberately tells you a whopper like that, at the same time telling you not to believe those pro-life folks who are; "bearing false witness", those who didn't support his health care overhaul. In Glen Becks words, "he broke a Commandment to accuse someone else of breaking a Commandment".

I loved it~!

Believer| 7.15.10 @ 11:42AM

Being a strick anti-abortionist I still find it difficult to argue with Oldefarts points however, Boxer as irrational as she is should'nt be blamed for abortion as she has almost the entire Democratic party behind her. And dont get your hopes up for her defeat in November as the voters in Calif. are Liberal first before anything else.

Richard2010| 7.15.10 @ 12:30PM

I know a woman who has had at least 7 abortions. I wonder if she couldnt have had the first abortion, and was forced to either raise her child or give it up for adobtion, whether she would have had the next 6 abortions? By the way, why not euthanize all old people that cant support themselves or people that are some what defective. Surely, they cost $$$. (To oldfarts point)

Boxer may win in CA - but I will not vote for that killer of innocent babies.

Alert1201| 7.15.10 @ 1:00PM

I had a cousin who had 5 or 6 abortions. Later when she actually wanted to have children she had to have special treatments (all at govt cost) to conceive because the inside of her womb had been scraped up so badly.

duck| 7.15.10 @ 1:04PM

Yes, my ex-sister-n-law had 7 abortions in 5 years. She didn't want to loose her $60K a year useless state job or cramp her life style, as she put it. "I count for myself, no one else will..."

As far as euthanizing the elderly, isn't that what Obama care will be for???

KyMouse| 7.16.10 @ 9:57AM

When it comes to abortion, I think that the words we use are very important. I recently started saying "aborted her baby" instead of "had an abortion" (e.g. "a cousin who aborted 5 or 6 babies"). The reason is, the mother can "have" a cheeseburger or a date, but abortion is something that is done to her baby (although it can have terrible consequences for the mother, too).

That's another "choice" I've made -- to refer to the pregnant woman as the "mother," since she IS her unborn baby's mother. For example, I try to remember to say "mothers who abort their babies" instead of "women who have abortions."

Lulu| 7.15.10 @ 11:53AM

If no other reason, CA should send these DemoRATS to pasture. Anyone in Congress that has gone against the majority of the people, as they have, should be sent home and never return to Washington, D.C. again. If not, the entire USA will not be the country we are all proud to be a part of.

Husker1| 7.15.10 @ 11:56AM

Every time we get into a discussion about sanctity of Life issues, it reminds me of the line I heard the Catholic Priest repeating over and over outside the hospital where they were alternately feeding and starving Terri Schiavo (remember her?): It is Proverbs 8:36 "But he that sinneth against me, wrongeth his own soul. All they that hate me love death"

Vic| 7.16.10 @ 6:13PM

Ah the wisdom verses, which Jesus refered to as describing himself in Mat 11:19

The son of man came eating and drinking, and they say,"here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners," but wisdom is proved right by her actions. Mat 11:19 NIV

Indeed, all who hate wisdom (Jesus) love death.

kay J| 7.15.10 @ 12:00PM

You said it loulou.
Barbara Boxer is a prime example of what these delusional politicians think of themselves. On top of that they think we believe their delusions too. Mam is just fine for her .

L. Ross| 7.15.10 @ 12:44PM

I don't want to be too much of a downer here, but having lived in California for about a decade, I can offer little hope the Fiorina. These nutjobs go to the polls and vote almost without fail for the stupidest ideas ever to come down the pike. I despair for this state.

PolishKnight| 7.15.10 @ 1:08PM

The election wouldn't be so "close" if they had gone with a more conservative candidate instead of the flawed Fiorina. Wasn't the notion of "we need to support ELECTABLE candidates even if they stink" supposed to go out with the window with John "Amnesty" McCain?

jgo| 7.15.10 @ 1:23PM

I see this contest as a typical pairing of the worst possible candidates. Either way it goes in November, Californians and US citizens lose.

I concur with PolishKnight and L. Ross.

Joan of Snark| 7.15.10 @ 1:42PM

Since word on the street from the more rabid and racist-type Hispanics is that they intend on breeding like rabbits in order to further the agenda of organizations like La Raza, perhaps Carly should start reminding them that Boxer is all for the inhumane aborting of their precious babies. Might sway some of the (illegal) votes to go against Boxer.

Dean| 7.15.10 @ 1:49PM

When American troops returned home from Vietnam, many were excoriated and spat upon as "baby killers." They were not guilty of such charges, but Barbara Boxer, her colleagues, and supporters definitely are!
When I first heard about partial-birth abortion, my reaction was, "Who came up with this, Dr. Mengele and his fellow Nazi butchers?"
In a group that has an overabundance of no-talent ass clowns, Barbara Boxer, along with Patty Murray and Debbie Stabenow, are strong contenders for the title of stupidest bastard in the Senate!

Richard A| 7.15.10 @ 3:02PM

Exactly! What's at stake in California is that if Boxer loses, my beloved Michigan will be home to the biggest twit in the Senate.

Wordwaryor| 7.15.10 @ 2:17PM

Ask yourself this one question :

Since the unborn child's blood type may be totally different from the mother, and since the Bible says "God hates hands that shed innocent blood." Question : Is any innocent blood shed during an abortion ?

Vasu Murti| 7.15.10 @ 2:20PM

California is a "blue" state. Pro-life Democrats deserve greater visibility, if the pro-life cause is to succeed.

Brad Woodhouse, Communications Director, Democratic National Committee, wrote to me in a recent e-mail:

"Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina has argued her corporate background shows she has the experience to make important decisions for California -- even though she was fired when she failed to deliver as Chief Executive Officer for Hewlett-Packard. Given the state's tattered economy and 12.5-percent unemployment rate, Californians simply can't afford a far-right candidate with a record of sending jobs overseas.

Five Facts about Carly Fiorina:

1) Named as one of Conde Nast Portfolio's "20 Worst American CEOs of All Time," Carly Fiorina laid off more than 30,000 workers, shipped jobs to China, and was responsible for a 52-percent drop in HP's stock price.

2) Endorsed by Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina wants to repeal health care reform, and supports the extremist Arizona immigration law.

3) She defended HP's practice of shipping jobs offshore by calling it "right-shoring," and said in a 2004 speech that "there is no job that is America's God-given right anymore."

4) She denies that climate change is a serious national issue, referring to it mockingly as "the weather."

5) She expects Californians to turn out for her on Election Day, but she hasn't turned out herself: Since 2000, she only voted in just eight out of 23 elections -- skipping the 2000 and 2004 Presidential primaries.

In an article appearing in the September 1980 issue of The Progressive entitled "Abortion: The Left Has Betrayed the Sanctity of Life," Mary Meehan concluded:

"It is out of character for the Left to neglect the weak and the helpless. The traditional mark of the Left has been its protection of the underdog, the weak, and the poor. The unborn child is the most helpless form of humanity, even more in need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient or the boat people on the high seas. The basic instinct of the Left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves — and that instinct is absolutely sound. It is what keeps the human proposition going."

Writing in the Tallahassee Democrat, pro-life feminist Rosemary Bottcher similarly observed:

"I had always thought it peculiar how the liberal and conservative philosophies have lined up on the abortion issue. It seemed to me that liberals traditionally have cared about others and human rights, while conservatives have cared about themselves and property rights. Therefore, one would expect liberals to be defending the unborn and conservatives to be encouraging their destruction."

"Corporations got more rights than people!" sings Peter Garrett of Midnight Oil, in their 1988 song, "Dead Heart."

Christians have found themselves unable to agree upon many pressing moral issues—including abortion. Exodus 21:22-24 says if two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the child is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus. On the other hand, the Didache (Apostolic Church teaching) forbade abortion.

"There has to be a frank recognition that the Christian church is divided on every moral issue under the sun: nuclear weapons, divorce, homosexuality, capital punishment, animals, etc.," says Reverend Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest, the foremost theologian in the field of animal-human relations, and author of Christianity and the Rights of Animals (1987). "I don’t think it’s desirable or possible for Christians to agree upon every moral issue. And, therefore, I think within the church we have no alternative but to work within diversity."

I really have a problem with Christians, on the one hand insisting that their stand against abortion be applied to others who might not share their faith, but then embrace moral relativism when it suits them, e.g.: "Your religion says it's wrong to kill animals for food, clothing, or sport...mine doesn't."

Writer and activist Jean Blackwood, in the July 1993 issue of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, a peace and justice publication on the religious Left, notes:

"Many of the young people who make up the animal rights and environmental movement grew up with pro-abortion rhetoric in their ears. They can make the mental shift from banning CFCs, outlawing whaling, and abolishing clearcuts to 'a woman's right to choose' with such alacrity that one might suspect no self-contradiction was involved."

For many young people today, abortion is just another choice; just another form of birth control. Will they be more inclined to listen to a secular moral philosophy that doesn't dictate their sexual behavior or intrude upon their private life, or a set of unprovable religious beliefs that does?

There ARE non-traditional pro-life groups that make up "The Left Side of the March" on the March on Washington, every January 22nd, in D.C.: Vegans for Life, Democrats for Life, Feminists for Life, the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL), etc. I'm not sure if Atheists for Life is included, but Rachel MacNair, a Quaker pacifist, vegan, psychology professor and past president of Feminists For Life, pointed out when speaking in San Francisco in 1998, that there are pro-life atheists who argue that life is especially precious, because there is no afterlife.

(This argument is also used by Reverend Andrew Linzey in his 1987 book, Christianity and the Rights of Animals against Christians who claim animals don't have souls: if there is no afterlife for animals and they are not to be compensated in an afterlife for the sufferings we inflict upon them now, then there is no justification for causing them pain and/or taking their lives.)

My friend James Dawson, raised Catholic, now a Theravadin Buddhist, published Live and Let Live, a pro-life, animal rights, Libertarian 'zine, from 1992 to 2003. Someone once wrote in, and referred to Libertarians as "Republicans who do drugs." (Rachel MacNair broke up laughing when I told her this!) Shay Van Vliemen, President of Vegans for Life, wrote on an e-mail list for pro-life vegetarians and vegans in the late 1990s, that she doesn't expect to see a vegan president in her lifetime--she would just be glad to have a pro-life president who would work to overturn Roe v. Wade. And she insisted she is NOT a Republican, but a Libertarian.

Respected pro-life columnist Nat Hentoff is a self-described "liberal Jewish atheist." Not your stereotypical pro-lifer! The pro-life movement desperately needs religious diversity, and someone like Hentoff gives it credibility in secular circles. When Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a physician who presided over some 60,000 abortions before changing sides on the issue, wrote Aborting America in 1979, he was an atheist. He has since become a Christian. One thing the pro-life movement desperately needs is religious diversity. It's already stereotyped as being Christian (born again, Catholic, fundamentalist, etc.). I mentioned this to James Dawson when he was about to write to Dr. Nathanson about information on contraception. It caused James to write to Doris Gordon of Libertarians for Life (who, like Hentoff, is also a Jewish atheist) for the information.

The pro-life movement must inevitably become completely secular, as it attempts to convince the American public, the courts, the legislatures, universities, philosophers, ethicists, etc. that human zygotes and embryos should be regarded as legal persons. (Conversely, the animal rights movement is secular and nonsectarian, but will need the inspiration, blessings and support of organized religion to help end injustices towards animals.)

In England, where animal rights are more accepted (the now defunct Animals' Agenda ran an article in the late '90s, about how animal activists in the U.S. look to England as an example of where we might be twenty or thirty years from now), there are organizations such as PEACH (Peace, Ethics, Animals and Consistent Human rights) and LIFELINK which oppose abortion and support animal rights.

Nat Hentoff appears on a Seamless Garment video from the early '90s. In it, he says that he came to the realization that abortion is the taking of human life, rather than, say, killing a bird or an insect. While I respect him for opposing abortion (a courageous thing to do, especially for those of us on the Left!), his argument (like that of the pro-life position) is essentially speciesist. We protect a human zygote for no other reason than it has human chromosomes.

A contemporary Hindu spiritual master, Srila Hridayanada dasa Goswami discusses the hypocrisy of claiming to be "pro-life" while killing animals. He writes:

"Insisting that human life begins at conception, the anti-abortion movement seeks to shock us into the awareness that abortion means killing--killing a human being rather than an animal, a bird, an insect, or a fish. Thus although the movement calls itself 'pro-life', it is really 'pro-human-life'. Its fudging with the terms 'life' and 'human life' reveals a disturbing assumption: that nonhuman life is somehow not actually life at all, or if it is, then it is somehow not as 'sacred' as human life and therefore not worth protecting... If the pro-life movement can become part of a broader struggle to recognize the sacredness of all life...then undoubtedly it will attain great success."

The pro-life cause will never succeed until it embraces animal rights:

Fifteen years ago, in an article appearing in the Atlantic Monthly, George McKenna wrote: "Within the liberal left, from which the Democrats draw their intellectual sustenance, there is increasing dissatisfaction with the absolutist dogma of 'abortion rights.' Nat Hentoff, a columnist in the left-liberal Village Voice, wonders why those who dwell on 'rights' refuse to consider the possibility that unborn human beings may also have rights."

Another liberal Jewish atheist, Peter Singer, concedes this point. Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation, is not liked even by pro-life liberals, including some on the Democrats-For-Life e-mail list, because he advocates not just abortion, but infanticide and euthanasia as well.

Bill Samuel, who was raised a Quaker and a lifelong vegetarian and president of Consistent Life (formerly the Seamless Garment Network, a liberal, pro-life, peace and justice organization), once compared Peter Singer to Hitler. (There is a sad irony here, as Peter Singer lost three of his four grandparents in the Nazis' concentration camps.)

Pro-life feminist Mary Krane Derr and I co-wrote a piece on Hindu perspectives on abortion, for the Fall 1998 online issue of Studies in Pro-Life Feminism, appearing on the Feminism and Nonviolence Studies Association website: www.fnsa.org . She credits me and my writings with having caused her to become a vegetarian. Mary admits that there are pro-choice animal activists who have advanced the cause of animal rights, just as there are pro-choice feminists who have advanced the cause of feminism.

However, Mary called Peter Singer's Should the Baby Live? "intellectualized racism", because he advocates euthanizing handicapped infants. I'll always respect Peter Singer as the author of Animal Liberation (i.e., for stating in secular philosophical and to some extent political language what we ethical vegetarians have always known to be true), but disagree vehemently with him on the issues of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia.

Anyway, in his article, "Taking Life: the Embryo and the Fetus", Singer quotes a report of a British government committee inquiring into laws about homosexuality and prostitution, which concludes: "There must remain a realm of private morality and immorality that is, in brief and crude terms, not the law's business." ("Not the Law's Business?"--the Wolfenden Committee-- issued the Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution, Command Paper 247, London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1957, p. 24)

Singer goes on to quote John Stuart Mill (in his essay "On Liberty") as having said: "...the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others..." Singer writes that "Mill's view is often and properly quoted in support of the repeal of laws that create 'victimless crimes'--like the laws prohibiting homosexual relations between consenting adults, the use of marijuana and other drugs, prostitution, gambling and so on. Abortion is often included in this list...

"The fallacy involved in numbering abortion among the victimless crimes should be obvious," concedes Singer. "The dispute about abortion is, largely, a dispute about whether or not abortion does have a 'victim.' " So even Peter Singer, who can hardly be called a right-to-lifer, concedes that the abortion debate centers on whether or not abortion is "victimless." Nat Hentoff's observation is correct!

Peter Singer writes:

"The belief that mere membership in our species, irrespective of other characteristics, makes a great difference to the wrongness of killing a being is a legacy of religious doctrines that even those opposed to abortion hesitate to bring into the debate...those who protest against abortion but dine regularly on the bodies of chickens, pigs, and calves show only a biased concern for the lives of members of our own species."

During the Reagan Administration's "Baby Doe" rules, Singer wrote in Pediatrics:

"If we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal, a dog or a pig, for example, we will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and anything else that can plausibly be considered morally significant."

In his article, "Bridging the Gap," Peter Singer writes:

"Baby Valentina was born in Palermo, Italy, in April 1992. She was an anencephalic -- that is, she was born with all of her brain, except the brain stem, missing. This meant that she would never be able to be conscious...or to experience anything at all. Such babies usually die within a few days of birth. Valentina's parents, seeking to salvage something out of a birth that was...less than they had expected, offered her as an organ donor.

"Amidst heated public debate, the Italian court ruled that this could not be permitted. to take the hear or any other vital organ from a living human being, even one with nothing more than a brain stem, would also not be allowed in other countries. So Baby Valentina died, and her organs could not be used to save any other babies.

"Only two months after the death of Baby Valentina...Dr. Thomas Starzl, a transplant surgeon, removed the liver from a healthy baboon and transplanted it into the heart of a man who was dying from liver disease. The baboon, a healthy, sentient, intelligent, responsive animal, was killed immediately after the liver was taken; the patient died about two months later. No court stepped in to prevent the use of a baboon's liver.

"The traditional sanctity-of-life ethic forbids us to kill and take the organs of a human being who is not, and never can be, even minimally conscious; and it maintains this refusal even when the parents of the infant favor the donation of the organs. At the same time, this ethic accepts without question that we may rear baboons and chimpanzees in order to kill them and use their organs. Why does our ethic draw so sharp a distinction between human beings and all other animals? Why does species membership make such a difference to the ethics of how we may treat a being?"

Let's keep the debate completely secular! Many animal activists are secular progressives. The pro-choice position is entrenched in the political Left. The religious right is never going to win over the secular Left on the issue of abortion by quoting scripture or turning to unprovable religious beliefs to back up their position. Doing so will only reinforce the stereotype that pro-lifers are all religious fanatics who aren’t grounded in secular reality.

In Guerilla Apologetics for Life Issues, pro-life author Paul Nowak also says, "You should try as much as possible to keep religion out of the discussion." This is significant. Only in the secular arena can we promote our ideals without imposing our religious beliefs on others. And persons using the secular arena to defend the unborn must not turn to unprovable religious beliefs to deny rights to animals. In the secular arena, one’s religious identity must be completely irrelevant.

It is a scientific fact that individual human life is a continuum from fertilization until natural death. Religion did not discover when life begins, the biologists did. Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, etc. are all stages of human development. To destroy that life at any stage of development is to destroy that individual.

Animal rights activists insist, "A dog is a rat is a pig is a boy," i.e., there are no morally relevant differences between humans and other animals as far as everyday ethics are concerned.

Pro-lifers must similarly insist, "A zygote is an embryo is a fetus is an infant is a toddler is an adolescent is an adult," and back it up with science.

Pro-choicers argue the mother's burden often outweighs the potential right to life. Are the unborn "potential life" or "actual life"? Judith Jarvis Thomson, in "A Defense of Abortion" (Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1971), said we don't refer to "acorns" as "oaks." Pro-lifers have responded that this is a sleight of hand: we don't refer to "infants" as "adults," either.

In Guerrilla Apologetics for Life Issues, author Paul Nowak asks his readers to try and get pro-choicers to determine when they think human rights should begin; implying that since life begins at fertilization, all other criteria (viability, birth, etc.) are arbitrary. The real question in the abortion debate is not the seemingly absurd scenario of giving full human rights to human zygotes, but rather the thorny question of how to protect those rights without violating a new mother's privacy and civil liberties.

In January 2006, on the eve of the West Coast Walk For Life, Carol Crossed of Democrats For Life (she wrote the foreword to my own book, The Liberal Case Against Abortion) spoke optimistically of Roe v. Wade being overturned.

When I asked her if Roe could be overturned without Griswold v. Connecticut (the 1965 Supreme Court decision which guarantees a right to marital privacy regarding the practice of contraception) being overturned as well, Carol froze, and couldn't answer the question!

I would have preferred it if she'd said instead: "You're right. It's wrong to put people under surveillance, without their knowledge or consent. We shouldn't have to resort to such draconian measures to protect prenatal life."

As a pro-life liberal, it's my conviction the real issue in the abortion debate is not necessarily the seemingly absurd scenario of giving full human rights to human zygotes (this is, after all, how life begins), but rather the thorny question of how to protect those rights without violating a new mother's privacy and civil liberties.

Unless one is a shameless exhibitionist, it's generally understood that there are certain activities (copulation, defecation, etc.) people do which are meant to be done in private!

I've contributed heavily to the ACLU Foundation in the past, not because I've suddenly become a huge fan of partial-birth abortions, but because (having lived unwillingly under electronic surveillance), it's my conviction we have a right to privacy.

A new mother's privacy and civil liberties! There are no pro-life groups on either the right or the Left (including progressive pro-life groups, like Democrats For Life or Feminists For Life) which openly advocate contraception. And this makes us vulnerable to attack from the pro-choice side.

This isn't a shouting match. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers agree on everything except the timing; i.e., the time to decide when to have a child is before fertilization, not after. The abortion issue is not a confrontation between misogynistic oppressors of women and cold-blooded "baby-killers," rather it is a rational, secular debate on when human rights should begin.

Let's avoid propagandistic euphemisms. I am forced to use the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life," because these are the political labels by which the pro-abortion and anti-abortion sides identify themselves. But they are both misleading. Dr. Bernard Nathanson (cofounder of NARAL; a physician who presided over some 60,000 abortions before changing sides on the issue), wrote in his 1979 book, Aborting America:

"The Right-to-Lifers are not in favor of all 'life' under all circumstances. They are not in the forefront of the save-the-seals crusade. They are not devotees of Albert Schweitzer's 'reverence for life,' or its equivalent in Eastern religions, in which the extinction of cows or flies somehow violates the sanctity of the cosmos.

"Turning to the human species, they do not necessarily oppose the taking of life via capital punishment. Where were they when Caryl Chessman was executed for a crime he did not likely commit--and a rape at that, not a murder?

"They were likely not notably in the opposition while the United States was sacrificing lives on both sides of a questionable war in Viet Nam.

"They are not 'pro-life'; they are simply anti-abortion."

However, Dr. Nathanson goes on to say about those who prefer to be called "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion":

"This is the Madison Avenue euphemism of the other side. Who could possibly be opposed to something so benign as 'choice'? The answer is: Almost anyone--depending. The diehard opposition to civil rights and public accommodations for black Americans in the '50s and '60s was 'pro-choice' with a vengeance. Some whites wanted the 'right' to rent hotel rooms to whomever they wished.

"Most of us now oppose the concept of choice in such ugly claims. The true question is, 'What choice is being offered, and should society sanction that choice?' In any honest discussion we must focus upon what is being chosen, without hiding behind the slogan."

Most Americans are neither pro-life nor pro-choice. American public opinion falls somewhere in the middle. We see those on the pro-choice side opposing even reasonable restrictions on abortion.

For example: our laws require parental notification or consent if minors want tattoos or pierced ears; why should abortion be exempt?

The decision to take a life is very grave, so why is it unreasonable to require a 24 hour waiting period, to give a new mother time to think things through, rather than make a decision in haste?

The pro-choice rhetoric that women are capable of deciding for themselves whether or not to carry a child to term means they ought to be able to make informed choices. The informed consent or "women's right to know" laws advocated by pro-lifers are consistent with pro-choice rhetoric.

Even many on the pro-choice side are uncomfortable with abortion during the later stages of pregnancy, yet they are often reluctant to support a ban on partial-birth abortion: a procedure which is never medically "necessary," and which former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan likened to infanticide.

In Guerilla Apologetics for Life Issues, Paul Nowak points out that Planned Parenthood opposes even reasonable restrictions upon abortion, such as 24 hour waiting periods, parental notification, informed consent or "women's right to know" laws, etc. Nowak writes: "Planned Parenthood opposes clinic regulations, despite the fact that in many states there are more restrictions on veterinary clinics than self-regulated abortion facilities."

Since the goal of the pro-choice movement is to "keep abortion safe and legal," why does Planned Parenthood oppose clinic regulations?

Both sides are engaged in a propaganda war.

Had vegan presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) remained pro-life, I would have voted for him. Even pro-choicers have reason to be concerned...if he's willing to flip-flop on a serious human rights issue, just to get votes, how can you trust him on any other issue?

There are many pro-life liberals and non-traditional pro-lifers. The liberal opposition to abortion goes unreported by the mainstream media.

Vic| 7.16.10 @ 6:57PM

Taking seriously the reasoning used in your lengthy diatribe would leave us eating dirt, as vegetables are indeed living, breathing beings, as much so as animals, or humans for that matter. Check into biology 101 if you don't believe me.

Plants take in nutrients from the soil and using sunlight to produce their own food, they aspirate carbon dioxide during the day, and oxygen during the night while they feed on the food made that day.

An Indian friend of mine once told me that the word "vegetarian" is Indian for "bad hunter". After reading this I would change that to "bad reasoner"!

Scratch N Sniff| 7.17.10 @ 12:09PM

Huh?
Sorry, I must have dozed off during your monolog.
I'm for animal rights too. That is why I'm so interested in the Liberal Left's position on Marrying Your Animal! Beastiality by another Religion!
I maintain that -- if sex is a pain in the ass you are doing it the wrong way-- and China has the right idea kill the girl children as the money passes from man to man in that land.
New, New-age Idea! After 30 years of observation, declare ANY non- or poorly-performing politician "retroactively pursued delayed partial abortion" and we can restart any year without delaying for the non-cost effective circus event every 2-4 years!
And if we happen across any warped, kinda humanoid shaped, tree in the forest -- bring it along as a potential Idol, to be worshiped later.
Ignore me. I'm just lifting my leg against this one.

wodiej| 7.15.10 @ 2:26PM

80%+ of this country is conservative or moderate. I can guarantee you that the 80% are paying attention to what the Democrats are doing and will be voting in November. But the 20% of Democratic voters will not be.

RCV| 7.15.10 @ 6:23PM

Democrats are now 35.4% of the electorate.

Tim| 7.15.10 @ 2:36PM

I have stated this before as well as others have said the same thing.

Not withstanding the fact that abortion is the killing of a human being.......

I wonder if the Boxer's of the world ever think of how many future good strong and noble worker, and human rights activists and good strong socialists, democrats or Union and Community organizers have been killed through abortion?

It's amazing that in her quest for mis guided power, Boxer's policies have managed to kill off millions of people that would perhaps agree with her general world view.

Abortion is not only absolutely morally wrong but politically stupid.

You would think that the left would want as many poor folks born as possible in order to expand their welfare state and millions of future voters that support their causes.

There is no logic to their support for abortion!

Richard2010| 7.15.10 @ 4:06PM

Tim.. There is some logic. It's called Eugenics...

Don Carlson| 7.16.10 @ 7:05AM

Eugenics cannot be real or effective until we have a sure-fire method of knowing in advance that an infant is going to grow up to like you.

dw| 7.15.10 @ 3:11PM

There is no bases for the equivoction of protecting human life to animal life. Those animals that have served to sustain life throughout human history are nothing more than a utilitarian requirement for the purpose of the survival of a mass population. Without the means of relying on the meat from such animals, as part of natures food chain, humans would not be here today. The transfer of human personality and characteristics that Freud called personification is a mental psychosis and represents a less than dynamic ability to properly prioritize lifes real issues.
Those who need to consult so called intellectual elitist so they may be told what to think on an issue like this suffer from weakmindedness and a complete lack of conviction to there fellow unborn.
It is true that for the most part it is the left that is killing their unborn while at the same time they deal in the sophistry of animal protection. The prospect of protesting to save a cow on the one hand and being pro abortion on the other is a true hypocrisy of priorities.
Responsibility through adoption not abortion is the proper message for a civilized society. Ingrain that behavior and there would be less need for any of it.

Vasu Murti| 7.15.10 @ 7:10PM

Australian philosopher Peter Singer writes in his 1975 book Animal Liberation:

A liberation movement is a demand for an end to prejudice and discrimination based on an arbitrary characteristic like race or sex. The classic instance is the Black Liberation movement. The immediate appeal of this movement, and its initial, if limited, success, made it a model for other oppressed groups. We soon became familiar with Gay Liberation and movements on behalf of American Indians and Spanish-speaking Americans.

When a majority group--women--began their campaign some thought we had come to the end of the road. Discrimination on the basis of sex, it was said, was the last form of discrimination to be universally accepted and practiced without secrecy or pretense, even in those liberal circles that have long prided themselves on their freedom from prejudice against racial minorities.

We should always be wary of talking of "the last remaining form of discrimination." If we have learned anything from the liberation movements we should have learned how difficult it is to be aware of latent prejudices in our attitudes to particular groups until these prejudices are forcefully pointed out to us.

A liberation movement demands an expansion of our moral horizons. Practices that were previously regarded as natural and inevitable come to be seen as the result of an unjustifiable prejudice. In comparison with other liberation movements, Animal Liberation has a lot of handicaps. First and most obvious is the fact that the exploited group cannot themselves make an organized protest against the treatment they receive (though they can and do protest to the best of their abilities individually). We have to speak up on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves. You can appreciate how serious this handicap is by asking yourself how long blacks would have had to wait for equal rights if they had not been able to stand up for themselves and demand it. The less able a group is to stand up and organize against oppression, the more easily it is oppressed.

The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans; it is a prescription of how we should treat humans. Thomas Jefferson saw this point. He wrote in a letter to the author of a book the notable intellectual achievements of Negroes in order to refute the then common view that they had limited intellectual capacities:

"...whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the property or person of others."

Similarly when in the 1850s the call for women's rights was raised in the United States a remarkable black feminist named Sojourner Truth made the same point in more robust terms at a feminist convention.

" ...they talk about this thing in the head; what do they call it? ('Intellect,' whispered someone nearby.) That's it. What's that got to do with women's rights or Negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half-measure full?"

If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose?

In a forward-looking passage written at a time when black slaves had been freed by the French but in the British dominions were still being treated in the way we now treat animals, Jeremy Bentham wrote:

"The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

"The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor.

"It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate.

"What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

The capacity for suffering and enjoyment is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in a meaningful way. It would be nonsense to say that it was not in the interests of a stone to be kicked along the road by a schoolboy. A stone does not have interests because it cannot suffer. A mouse, on the other hand, does have an interest in not being kicked along the road, because it will suffer if it is.

Vasu Murti| 7.15.10 @ 7:13PM

Vegetarianism has attracted some of the greatest minds in history.

Food expert Frances Moore Lappe, author of the bestseller Diet for a Small Planet, once said in a television interview that we should look at a piece of steak as if it were a Cadillac. "What I mean," she explained, "is that we in America are hooked on gas-guzzling automobiles because of the illusion of cheap petroleum. Likewise, we got hooked on a grain-fed, meat-centered diet because of the illusion of cheap grain."

The process of using grain to produce meat is incredibly wasteful: the USDA's Economic Research Service shows that we receive only one pound of beef for each sixteen pounds of grain. In his book Proteins: Their Chemistry and Politics, Dr. Aaron Altschul notes that in terms of calorie units per acre, a diet of grains, vegetables, and beans will support twenty times as many people than a meat-centered diet.

As it stands now, about half of the harvested acreage in America and in a number of European, African, and Asian countries is used to feed animals. If the earth's arable land were used primarily for the production of vegetarian foods, the planet could easily support a human population of twenty billion or larger.

Facts and points such as these have led food experts to point out that the world hunger problem is largely illusory. The Global Hunger Alliance writes: "Most hunger deaths are due to chronic malnutrition caused by inequitable distribution and inefficient use of existing food resources. At the same time, wasteful agricultural practices, such as the intensive livestock operations known as factory farming, are rapidly polluting and depleting the natural resources upon which all life depends. Trying to produce more foods by these methods would lead only to more water pollution, more soil degradation, and, ultimately, more hunger."

A report submitted to the United Nations World Food Conference concurs: "The overconsumption of meat by the rich means hunger for the poor. This wasteful agriculture must be changed--by the suppression of feedlots where beef are fattened on grains, and even a massive reduction of beef cattle."

"If you could feel or see the suffering, you wouldn't think twice. Give back life. Don't eat meat."

---actress Kim Basinger

Describing his reaction to a visit to a slaughterhouse, Canadian tennis champion Peter Burwash wrote in A Vegetarian Primer: "I'm no shrinking violet. I played hockey until half of my teeth were knocked down my throat. And I'm extremely competitive on a tennis court...But that experience at the slaughterhouse overwhelmed me. When I walked out of there, I knew all the physiological, economic, and ecological arguments supporting vegetarianism, but it was firsthand experience of man's cruelty to animals that laid the real groundwork for my commitment to vegetarianism."

Ethical considerations moved Benjamin Franklin, who became a vegetarian at age sixteen. Franklin noted "greater progress from that greater clearness of head and quicker apprehension." In his autobiographical writings, he called flesh-eating "unprovoked murder."

The poet Shelley was a committed vegetarian. In his essay, "A Vindication of Natural Diet," he wrote, "Let the advocate of animal food...tear a living lamb with his teeth and, plunging his head into its vitals, slake his thirst with the steaming blood...Then, and only then only, would he be consistent."

Shelley's interest in vegetarianism began when he was a student at Oxford, and he and his wife Harriet took up the diet soon after their marriage. In a letter dated March 14, 1812, his wife wrote to a friend, "We have foresworn meat and adopted the Pythagorean system." Shelley, in his poem "Queen Mab," described a world where humans do not kill animals for food.

"It is necessary to correct the error that vegetarianism has made us weak in mind, or passive or inert in action," wrote Mohandas Gandhi. "I do not regard flesh-food as necessary at any stage." Gandhi wrote several books in which he discussed vegetarianism. His own daily diet included wheat sprouts, almond paste, greens, lemons, and honey. He founded Tolstoy Farm, a community based on vegetarian principles. In his Moral Basis of Vegetarianism, Gandhi wrote, "I hold flesh-food to be unsuited to our species. We err in copying the lower animal world if we are superior to it...I do feel that spiritual progress does demand at some stage that we should cease to kill our fellow creatures for the satisfaction of our bodily wants."

"...the whole point of life is to harmonize with everything, every aspect of creation. That means down to not killing the flies, eating the meat, killing people or chopping the trees down."

---George Harrison

Kim Bartlett of Animal People in Clinton, WA, similarly writes:

"Something to think about: We believe that the Golden Rule applies to animals, too. We don't accept the prevailing notion that 'people come first' or that 'people are more important than animals.' Animals feel pain and suffer just as we do, and it is almost always humans making animals suffer and not the other way around. Yet in spite of how cruelly people behave towards animals -- not to mention human cruelty to other humans -- we are supposed to believe that humans are superior to other animals. If people want to fancy themselves as being of greater moral worth than the other creatures on this earth, we should begin behaving better than they do, and not worse. Let's start treating everyone as we would like to be treated ourselves."

In the Table of Contents to Rynn Berry's 1993 book, Famous Vegetarians and Their Favorite Recipes: Lives & Lore from Buddha to the Beatles, Pythagoras is described as an ancient Greek religious teacher. Gautama the Buddha is similarly described as an ancient Indian savant and religious teacher. Mahavira is described as the historical founder of the world's oldest vegetarian religion---the Jains of India. Plato (and Socrates) are described as Pythagorean philosophers who are the founders of the Western philosophical tradition. Plutarch is described as an ancient essayist and biographer, famous for his Lives of notable Greeks and Romans.

Leonardo da Vinci is described as an "Italian Renaissance man; Leonardo is one of Western Civilization's greatest geniuses." Percy Bysshe Shelley is described as a "scientist, classicist, aesthete, Shelley was probably the most gifted English Romantic poet." Leo Tolstoy: "Nineteenth century Russian author, Tolstoy is considered to be the world's greatest novelist." Annie Besant: "Nineteenth century English social reformer and spiritual leader...at once a feminist, a labor leader, a theosophist, a freethinker, a devoted mother and a founder of the planned parenthood movement. She is one of the most remarkable women of modern times."

Mohandas Gandhi: "Indian civic and spiritual leader; inventor of the hunger strike; architect of Indian independence; father of modern India." George Bernard Shaw: "Celebrated wit; peerless music and drama critic; essayist and dramatist of genius." Bronson Alcott: "American transcendentalist philosopher; father of Louisa May Alcott; founder of the first vegetarian commune, Fruitlands." Dr. John Harvey Kellogg: "World-class surgeon, pioneering nutritionist, and food inventor extraordinaire. Kellogg invented peanut butter, flaked cereals, and the first meat substitutes made from nuts and grains."

Henry Salt: "Venerable figure in the vegetarian movement; author of such vegetarian classics as Seventy Years Among the Savages, and Animal Rights." Frances Moore Lappe: "Author of Diet for a Small Planet, Lappe's two million copy bestseller put vegetarianism on the map, and awakened Westerners to the nutritional and economic benefits of a vegetarian diet." Isaac Bashevis Singer and Malcolm Muggeridge are described as the first major literary figures in the West to turn vegetarian since Tolstoy. Brigid Brophy: "Noted for her formidable intellect, Brigid Brophy is an English novelist, biographer, and critic of the first rank. She is the first major woman novelist to become a vegetarian."

tonypal| 7.15.10 @ 9:01PM

"If you're slower than me, stupider than me, and you taste good...tough shit, you're going to get eaten!" - Anthony Bourdain, No Reservations

Don Carlson| 7.16.10 @ 7:11AM

VASU MURTI---
I suppose you understand that the twisting of human nature you support can only succeed at the expense of all freedoms, and can only be imposed by a totalitarian government?

Vasu Murti| 7.16.10 @ 10:42AM

Don Carlson:

You're suggesting vegetarianism "...can only be imposed by a totalitarian government"? Perhaps at such an early stage of human history, yes. What about an enlightened government? That's how we progressives see it!

Professor Henry Bigelow observed: "There will come a time when the world will look back to modern vivisection in the name of science as they do now to burning at the stake in the name of religion."

Animal rights, as a secular, moral philosophy, may appear to be at odds with traditional religious thinking (e.g., human "dominion" over other animals), but this is equally true of democracy and representative government in place of the divine right of kings, the separation of church and state, the abolition of human slavery, the emancipation of women, birth control, the sexual revolution, lesbian and gay rights, and perhaps every kind of social progress since the end of the Dark Ages and the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment.

Some of the greatest figures in human history have been in favor of ethical vegetarianism and animal rights. These include: Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas Gandhi, Alice Walker, George Bernard Shaw, Robert Browning, Percy Shelley, Voltaire, Thomas Hardy, Rachel Carson, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Victor Hugo, John Stuart Mill, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Pythagoras, Susan B. Anthony, Albert Schweitzer, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Gertrude Stein, Frederick Douglass, Francis Bacon, William Wordsworth, the Buddha, Mark Twain, and Henry David Thoreau.

Abraham Lincoln once said: "I care not for a man’s religion whose dog or cat are not the better for it." Some of the most distinguished figures in the history of Christianity have also been vegetarian. A partial list includes: St. James, St. Matthew, Clemens Prudentius, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerome, Aegidius, St. Benedict, Boniface, St. Richard of Wyche, St. Filippo Neri, St. Columba, John Wray, Thomas Tryon, John Wesley, Joshua Evans, William Metcalfe, General William Booth, Ellen White, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, and Reverend V.A. Holmes-Gore, MA.

JLKrieger| 7.15.10 @ 3:54PM

I live in a part of the Left Coast that used to be somewhat conservative. During the 1980's when the housing here in Oregon was ultra cheap in comparison to Calif. we had whole herds of "Californicators" arrive. Being from LA and such places on the southern coast they immediately started pushing their weight around and accomplished the miracle of making a lightly populated state into their own image.

I felt like we were a petrie dish for Liberal Colonialism. Now we have a majority of Libtards just like the Calif Coast. There was a similar dynamic in King County (Seattle) Washington. Up there they even had people taking potshots at cars with Calif plates...all for naught of course.

"Loony Leftieism" is a plague. Do not let it get its clutches on your state! Stamp it out wherever you can or you will end up like Oregon and California. (We are more broke than Calif if that's possible).
We also were pioneers in in advanced abortion technology.
JLK

LiveFreeOrDie| 7.15.10 @ 6:57PM

I think Boxer's campaign has succeeded already on the TAS forums. Making her re-election campaign nothing more than a pro-choice/pro-life debate and please ignore the fact that our country is slowly being flushed down the toilet by career politicians (whores) such as madam Box.

Haynes| 7.15.10 @ 7:55PM

Ding Dong the *itch is dead. Oooooo...what a world.

UpChuck.Liberals| 7.15.10 @ 11:05PM

Babs Boxer needs to be ousted. I don't care if it's by Carly or Mickey Mouse. Santa Clara Valley also needs to dump Mike Honda, he's so far left that he can see the far right. Compared to Honda, Obama looks like a flaming conservative.

Fiorina fan| 7.15.10 @ 11:26PM

I have to wonder why Santorum was using an example of entire baby, except for one foot, being born - - that is not the way partial birth abortion is performed, according to a mailing I once received from Senator Smith years ago.

The baby, which would normally present head first (and therefore be a viable life) is "turned" last minute, so it will present feet first. That way the murdering doctor can insert forceps into the birth canal and crush infant's skull. Presto! Baby born dead due to having its skull crushed and brain suctioned out. Can't argue with success. If the baby is murdered and partially dismembered by the murderer, while still inside the woman seeking the murder of her child, then it is not called murder. We get partial birth abortion, performed for the welfare of the mother - - often meaning it would interrupt her sleep to get up and feed the baby.

A mother, after the birth of her child , is handed baby to cuddle and hold. I think it would be fitting for the mother of an aborted baby to have to hold the mangled and bloody remains of what she has ordered - just so she can have a memory of what she has done.

If Boxer is returned to California, it will be convenient for her to attend candlelight viigls at San Quentin on the rare occsions we have excutions. That is when all the Pro-Choice folks rally to save the life of a death-row inmate.

Don't try to sell crazy in CA. We are all full up on it here.

Yosemeti Sam| 7.16.10 @ 1:33AM

" ... Barbara Boxer's America is one of taxpayer-funded abortions, even partial-birth ones, from sea to shining sea, from the mountains to the prairies, from the Heartland to the South, from Hollywood to Manhattan. It's a lethal compact with the Culture of Death, and one that she and her handmaidens are not about to let slip through their clenched fists. To these women, too, like Senator Barbara Boxer, it's a bloodbath ...."

What truly mystifies is the fact that there are a dozen some Jews in the Senate.

With VOICES - of influential POWER!

Yet, not one, from my recollection, exhibited any strident affinity to the plight of the - INNOCENTs
collectively known as the abortion-bound EXPENDABLES!

Note: 6 million Jews - EXPENDABLE victims from a PREMEDITATED political Holocaust/Murderfest.

Are the 40, 50 million - but, who's counting right? - PREMEDITATED deaths of
INNOCENTS of no comparative HORROR?

I say - SHAME to any ethnic classification who've suffered HORRORS and whose voices are MUTE on this HORROR practiced DAILY in this (GOD-blessed ?) America.

A most shallow maternity instinct from SENATOR - a title she coveted - Boxer.

Tucci78| 7.16.10 @ 5:45AM

--
The anti-abortion fervor of the traditionalist conservatives is constantly voiced in ways which fail to address the consequences of re-criminalizing the voluntary termination of pregnancies.

What happens when women are denied the exercise of their right to determine whether they will or will not give birth?

This is not a little matter. What the traditionalist (mostly religious) conservatives seek is the imposition of the civil government's police power upon women engaged in the voluntary activities of daily life, including the most intimate of all personal functions.

The re-criminalization of abortion necessarily requires that the woman of child-bearing age - from puberty to menopause - be reduced to the status of "government property."

Anything she might do - anything she might eat, any arguably risky behavior in which she might engage, any act of sexual intimacy she might undertake - imposes upon her potential to reproduce, to "make a baby," and because there are a number of ways in which a woman can voluntarily terminate a pregnancy, she MUST be put under the scrutiny of government thugs from the moment she MIGHT become pregnant until either her tubes are tied, she undergoes a hysterectomy, or she is solidly into menopause.

Nothing else can satisfy the rabid anti-abortionists.

"Pro-life," indeed. Use "surveillance state" as the proper term.

The anti-abortion fanatic must criminalize not only abortifacient chemicals, devices and practices, but also home pregnancy tests which allow women to learn - "unofficially" - when they have become pregnant.

The anti-abortion movement must require that pregnant women be taken under the control of civil government - "for the CHILDREN'S sake!" - with all the rabid possessiveness of the most starkly socialist "Liberal."

Think "pregnancy police," okay?

If the traditionalist conservatives want to impose this upon America, be assured that their "Liberal" enemies - hateful as they truly are - will point this out to the American voting public.

And the American people are NOT as stupid as are traditionalist conservatives.

Stick to this, you bloody fools, and you you will destroy forever this nation's chance to throw off the socialists.
--

Vic | 7.16.10 @ 7:41PM

The anti-abortion fervor of the traditionalist conservatives is constantly voiced in ways which fail to address the consequences of re-criminalizing the voluntary termination of pregnancies.=quote

I suppose one could make the same argument in defense of any murderer, that state police would have to investigate, intruding on the privacy and rights of innocents to find information on the perpetrator.

What happens when women are denied the exercise of their right to determine whether they will or will not give birth? =quote

With the sheer multitude of means of contraception available to modern women, their is no excuse for irresponsibility to be a just cause for the premeditated murder of another human being.

The anti-abortion fanatic must criminalize not only abortifacient chemicals, devices and practices, but also home pregnancy tests which allow women to learn - "unofficially" - when they have become pregnant. =quote

This is simply a straw man. Show us the pro life conservative who seeks to ban contraception and pregnancy test. I assure you, they would be the exception, not the rule.

What you want is for the pro lifers to get over it. Don't demand any accountability for the trampling of the inalienable rights of the unborn. Never mind the constitution says right there in the preamble that its laws cover ourselves, and our POSTERITY. It will hurt the cause against the socialist.

Newsflash: both battles have been fought and lost. Welcome to the USSAs animal farm, where we are all equal, but some of us are more equal than the others!

Don Carlson| 7.16.10 @ 7:29AM

American conservatives are not monolithic on the issue of abortion, except perhaps to say that the government should have no part in it. Also, there is a distinction to be made between abortion of early pregnancies and late-term abortions. Late term abortions---and maybe any killing other than that done in early pregnancy---are so monstrous to many of us that we believe they should be treated as criminal acts. But we have to balance this against our belief in the right to self-determination and privacy for each citizen.

Conservatives differentiate themselves from the 'let the government do it' crowd by opposing the government's interference in decisions of conscience, whether they be made by hospital administrators, doctors, patients, or the families of patients. And we should also oppose government facilitation of those decisions.

Samwise| 7.16.10 @ 11:41AM

Although I would love to see Fiorina oust Boxer, I'm seeing that Boxer has all the powers that be and their money behind her, as does Harry Reid in Nevada...unless those who oppose Reid and Boxer get out there in droves in November, I'm afraid we are going to see a lot more of Boxer and Reid and their schemes to defraud our country and create a welfare state. Reid is spending millions on negative ads in Nevada - we need to look at our experience of these radical leftists and remember how deeply they have hurt their states and our country and vote according to the truth of those experiences and not according to the lies and manipulations of their negative ads. Show support for Angle and Fiorina or we will be sorry - deeply sorry.

RCV| 7.16.10 @ 5:39PM

Latest Rasmussen poll has Boxer ahead by 7 in California, while in Nevada, just out Las Vegas Journal-Review poll shows Reid up by 7, a big change from his double digit deficit only months ago.

checktothepower| 7.17.10 @ 8:53AM

Carly is smart and a fighter,she will put California on a path of honesty and prosperity.She will restore the value of life to "The Lost America".

call it what it is| 7.20.10 @ 12:08AM

How about "A Woman's Right to Choose to Murder her Baby".

How about a listing in the Yellow Pages in the Physicians Section:
PRE-NATAL MURDERERS, M.D.
"Need that Ugly Bump Removed?"
No Appointment Necessary

I worked in a hospital near a Southern CA college campus in 1974. Students came in for "tabs" as often as they got their teeth cleaned. TAB means therapeutic abortion - and as they were no longer dependents of their parents and had no money to pay, they got Medicaid. That way they would not have to notify mom and dad they were not going to be grandparents.

Sounds so awful when you put it that way!