Comment from Logic
Time November 3, 2009 at 5:32 am

The decline of the GOP is worrisome for everyone, even Democrats, because one-party political systems just don’t work. If American conservatism is allowed to boil down from an expansive and accommodating ideology to a shrill, narrow and endless recitation of insider terms (“m.s.m.,” “feminazi,” “moonbat”), it will end up hurting the overall cause, as well as the two party system. Unfortunately, it seems like it’s happening.

Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, James Dobson, et.al… they’ve destroyed the republican party from within, and they don’t even know it.

Time for something new.

Comment from geoff
Time November 3, 2009 at 7:36 pm

Wow!!! dig those run-on sentences! Someone should cut down on the caffeine…
But beautiful: all the backstabbing and infighting among a GOP still trying to blame ACORN for having won the election for Obama, instead of realising that McCain was a lousy candidate, that Palin is a dumb bimbo, and that maybe the party had been tainted by Bush & Cheney.
So yes: the obvious response is to praise extremism and dig yourself even deeper down that hole.

Comment from Art W.
Time November 3, 2009 at 8:05 pm

Logic: “The decline of the GOP is worrisome for everyone, even Democrats, because one-party political systems just don’t work.”

Nice to see you point out the disaster of a one-party system . . . but get a grip . . . Obama ran against a quasi-liberal like McCain and a “bimbo” like Palin and still . . . did not win by very much.

Comment from geoff
Time November 3, 2009 at 8:41 pm

Art: McCain is a quasi-liberal?!? Hmm. Why not just come out & call him a socialist and be done with it?
Knd of interesting looking at his “voting scores” in this regard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....scores.gif
Well, if McCain is a quasi-liberal, I guess that explains what’s wrong with the GOP: it elects a “quasi-liberal” as presidential candidate, all the while railing at and hating liberals, so… almost to be expected that they would end up being neurotic, self-hating and self-destructive with all those schizophrenic tendencies we’ve been laughing at lately: teabaggers, birthers, gunners, Rush & Glen Beck, etc.

Comment from Cal
Time November 3, 2009 at 9:04 pm

Logic couldn’t be more wrong or Brennan more right—er, Right. It isn’t Limbaugh and Palin. It’s Snowe and Graham and Collins and Specter and the other RINOs who are destroying the Republican Party. The Republican Party will never again succeed if it tries to keep doing “Democrat Lite.” Only the most conservative Democrats of today could never have gotten elected to congress when JFK was president. It has moved SO far left it would be unrecognizable to his generation. And the Republicans, with a brief couple of exceptions under Reagan and then in 1994 with the Gingrich Congress, have moved right along, er, Left along, with them. Republicans can not win when they govern like Democrats. They win only when they govern like conservatives.

If voting Republican means more Olympia Snowes or Dede Scazzafavos, then I’d rather let the Democrats run the country. Fortunately, there’s a grassroots movement afoot that is energizing conservatives like I haven’t seen since 1993 and it’s called “runaway spending and government takeover of the private sector.” The younger folks are learning what it was like to live under Jimmy Carter and we not-so-youngsters have never forgotten. It was MISERABLE!

Today’s elections won’t “prove” anything one way or the other, but if Democrats lose dark blue New Jersey along with Virginia and NY 23, Katie bar the door in 2010. And if Democrats get thumped as hard as it looks like they may, we may well see them divide into a “Social Democrat Party” on the far Left as Republican again becomes more synonymous with conservative. Regardless of all the pundit predictions, only time will tell.

Comment from geoff
Time November 3, 2009 at 9:11 pm

‘Neoconservatism has become a set of attitudes that might be summed up as, “somewhere, shaggy kids might be having sex or smoking dope—so let’s cut interest rates and invade Iraq!”’
More here: http://amconmag.com/article/2009/dec/01/00014/

Comment from Art W.
Time November 3, 2009 at 9:12 pm

Geoff: “Well, if McCain is a quasi-liberal, I guess that explains what’s wrong with the GOP:”

Partly, yes.

Comment from Art W.
Time November 3, 2009 at 9:21 pm

Geoff:”‘Neoconservatism has become a set of attitudes that might be summed up as, “somewhere, shaggy kids might be having sex or smoking dope—so let’s cut interest rates and invade Iraq!”’
More here: http://amconmag.com/article/2009/dec/01/00014/”

And the article wrapped up as such:

“Kristol was a fine writer often possessed of commonsensical ideas. But as the author of a new ideology of counter-radicalism, he was no conservative of any kind.”

Comment from geoff
Time November 3, 2009 at 9:26 pm

Art: more backstabbing. Keep up the good work, comrade!

Comment from Bill
Time November 4, 2009 at 10:10 pm

The problem with politics and society in general is that we continue down the same path of one extreme or another. glorify one, villify the other. It’s either all black, or all right. Being thoughtful, and seeing the shades of grey in addition to black and white is something that is now villified by the self righteous on both sides. Our society has glamorized “straight from the gut” reactionism as being the ideal, and any thoughtful consideration for other viewpoints is considered weak and lacking in morality. It’s easier that way…convenient. safe, and popular. Unfortunately life is not that convenent or easy, regardless of our wishes otherwise. Phil Brennan brings his lovely fire and brimstone angst about the aborition issue, which I thought was annoyingly inevitable. Just because he speaks loudly and forcefully does not necessarily make it entirely right. I believe in the freedom of choice, for how troubling that concept is in it’s entirety. I do not believe an abortion as a form of birth control, and I myself find it morally wrong. Abstinence is inarguably the most effective form of birth control, but I’m not anti-contraception either. Sometimes I think, that maybe a teenager would learn more about the reality of unplanned pregnancy by having to have to give birth, then give the child up for adoption. I think that would make them think twice before they make a stupid mistake again. For those who are so prolife as to be against abortion under any circumstances, or birth control/contraception under any circumstances, I honestly ask what you would do if your child were raped? Or if you found out they were the victim of incest? There are quite a number who would say, “Oh that’’s different, but I still wouldn’t allow abortion, because it’s indefensible.” Feel free to google Anencephaly, and then ask any woman who has experienced this traumatic birth, why an abortion wouldn’t be preferable. I”ve included the wikipedia article for those to judge for themselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

Comment from Bill
Time November 4, 2009 at 10:19 pm

Hey posters!!! What, not a word about the ‘be guilty’ rant from by this dued ! As the bumper sticker says: “Don’t believe in abortion ? Don’t have one”..But keep your skewed ethics, busy body noses and personal values to yourself. …”to butcher the infant in the womb”…yuke…it’s not an infant; it is a zygote or an embryo; and it is no one’s business except the woman’s.

To cloak this drivel as a political article should insult all of the free writers and thinkers of this site….I don’t see that that has happened.

Comment from geoff
Time November 4, 2009 at 10:25 pm

Bill: a lot of us have been here long enough to know that Phil’s a total loon. He’s sort of funny when he rants about the global warming “hoax,” but every now & then he seems to forget to take his meds, strays off topic, and makes an utter fool of himself. As here.

Comment from Bill B.
Time November 4, 2009 at 10:28 pm

More good advice from the American Taliban. It must be nice to have The Truth. To be able to bottle it, and slip it beneath one’s pillow, and sleep with it at night.

Comment from Glen
Time November 4, 2009 at 10:47 pm

Take what meds? The man is Irish (so am I). He is entitled to drink, to write, and lust after nuns. It is a little weird though, a man so consumed by internal body functions. Perhaps he should take a trip to Amsterdam; I understand that all the girls there are government inspected..

Comment from Bull
Time November 4, 2009 at 11:00 pm

I would have preferred a little more moderate whining.

Comment from geoff
Time November 4, 2009 at 11:02 pm

“The alleged right of same sex marriage.” I thought the issue was really one of “all men are created equal,” and same-sex partnerships were not being treated (afforded the same legal rights to things like being treated as “next of kin” etc.) as being with full legal marriage.

Comment from Dave
Time November 4, 2009 at 11:05 pm

I guess I got here late. Just receiveing my Cagle now. This Brennan guy sure is a piece of work. His rant about abortion, however loud, is just that. I hope for more prevention of pregnancies. But, a woman should have every right to do as she sees best in the case of her own body. I don’t believe abortion is birth control either.
The elections in NJ and VA are no surprise. Virginia has elected the opposite of whomever is in office for years. Much like NJ.
Now, the tea-baggers, etal, swooped into District 23 in New York. High-jacked the process. Ousting the people’s choice and replaced her with a “conservative” who knew nothing of the district. Didn’t live in the district and admitted wasn’t interested in the issues of the district. HE LOST!! The first time a Democrat has held that office in that area since 1854. Sort of tells you something.
It, of course, would have been nice to have Democratic Governors in NJ and VA. But, the losses were no surprise. It, turns out, is much more beneficial that the Democratic gained two seats in Congress. Meaning republicans LOST two seats. Still the shape of things to come. The republicans have no clue. No solutions, No viable candidate and no hope.

Comment from Art W.
Time November 4, 2009 at 11:45 pm

Dave: “Now, the tea-baggers, etal, swooped into District 23 in New York. ”

You libs sure use the term “tea-bagger” a lot, so you all must be very familiar with it. Can you explain to us what it is exactly?

Comment from Art W.
Time November 4, 2009 at 11:49 pm

Dave: “But, a woman should have every right to do as she sees best in the case of her own body.”

I would agree . . . however, particularly in the case of late-term abortion, is the baby still “her body”? Is it the woman’s body or the baby’s body being hacked up and sucked out?

Comment from Art W.
Time November 4, 2009 at 11:55 pm

Dave: “I don’t believe abortion is birth control either.”

Agreed. Let’s work to prevent it from being used as such.

Comment from Dave
Time November 4, 2009 at 11:58 pm

Tea-bagger term was first used by the tea-baggers themselves. No sense in changing their name now.
Late-term abortion is not practiced as much as you may think. And late-term abortion is usually performed due to serious complications risking the health of the mother. One isn’t going to just decide at late-term of pregnancy to go get an abortion.

Comment from ellis
Time November 5, 2009 at 12:02 am

there is nothing like a no nothing like cal, living in a world 150 years to lat, long after the No Nothing party ceased to exist. he wishes to have a party that that tried and failed and to do that would be happy with all those in his party that have little brains and ability to think rationally. he and the people he likes want to move back a couple of centuries to a time he believes existed but never was. his idea of what the u.s. should be never was at all, but is only in the mind of those filled with sentimentality but no real knowledge of history.
what is worse is that he is trying to get rid of the only people in the republican party who have ideas and can think rationally. i might not approve of their ideas en mass but i do admire the way they work and think. cal certainly fits right into the party of no.

Comment from Art W.
Time November 5, 2009 at 12:02 am

Dave: “It, of course, would have been nice to have Democratic Governors in NJ and VA. But, the losses were no surprise. It, turns out, is much more beneficial that the Democratic gained two seats in Congress. Meaning republicans LOST two seats. Still the shape of things to come. The republicans have no clue. No solutions, No viable candidate and no hope.”

Considering how long NJ has had a dem in office . . . and how many times Obama rolled into town campaigning on his behalf (I wish he spent as much time talking to his commander in Afghanistan) - yea, it would have been ‘nice’.

The most important thing to note about what took place last night is that 2 states with a significant number of electoral college votes (NJ-15; V-13) just went from being Blue states to Red states…Obama losing both, only 1 year after having won them.

As you stated: “Still the shape of things to come.”

Comment from Art W.
Time November 5, 2009 at 12:04 am

Dave: “Tea-bagger term was first used by the tea-baggers themselves.”

You sound like you know a lot about ‘tea-baggers’ . . . what does it mean? Who are the tea-baggers? Are YOU a tea-bagger?

Comment from Art W.
Time November 5, 2009 at 12:06 am

Dave: “Late-term abortion is not practiced as much as you may think.”

How many late-term abortions are performed each year?

Comment from Art W.
Time November 5, 2009 at 12:24 am

Dave: “One isn’t going to just decide at late-term of pregnancy to go get an abortion.”

Really? Never? I’ve written about this in the past - long story short, I had an (unintentional) opportunity to sit in with a support group for woman that have had abortions. Some of the things I heard still send chills up my spine (not up my leg, that’s Chris Matthews). One of them was the story of a young woman in her late teens. She had a very late-term abortion after her boyfriend, who was supportive of her through most of the pregnancy, broke up with her. Yup, that’s it . . . he broke up with her. Dreams of happily-ever-after out the window - that baby was eliminated. This is certainly not to say that many abortions do not take place for medical reasons, I am sure they do. However, it happens just that easily sometimes Dave and more than YOU know.

Comment from Rob
Time November 5, 2009 at 12:31 am

The moral quiz

The One (1) Question Test.
This test only has one question, but it’s a very important one. By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally. The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which you will have to make a decision. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous.

THE SITUATION:

You are in Florida , Miami to be specific. There is
chaos all around you caused by a hurricane with severe flooding. This is a
flood of biblical proportions. You are a photojournalist working for a
major newspaper, and you’re caught in the middle of this
epic disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless.

You’re trying to shoot career-making photos. There are
houses and people swirling around you, some disappearing under the
water. Nature is unleashing all of its destructive fury.
=============================================
THE TEST:

Suddenly you see a man and a woman in the water. They
are fighting for their lives, trying not to be taken down with the
debris. You move closer.

Somehow they look familiar. You suddenly realize who
they are. It’s Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi!! At the
same time you notice that the raging waters are about to
take them under forever. You have two options: You can
save their lives or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer
Prize winning photo, documenting the deaths of two of
the world’s most powerful people.
===============================================

THE QUESTION:

Here’s the question, and please give an honest answer…

Would you select high contrast color film, or would you
go with the classic simplicity of black and white?

Comment from Art W.
Time November 5, 2009 at 12:41 am

Rob - now come on, this is a serious site where we discuss complex political, legal and ethical matters and you, sir, are talking about our President and 3rd in command.

. . . gotta go black and white.

Comment from stevens…
Time November 5, 2009 at 1:38 am

Art W…… Was the black and white thing a pun ???

Comment from Ex-Libtard
Time November 5, 2009 at 3:19 am

I concede. It’s time to encourage the whiny libs to have all the abortions they desire. Today, they constitute a paltry 20% of the US population. As they continue to abort, eventually there will none!!!! Ergo, utopia is still achievable……….

Comment from Rob
Time November 5, 2009 at 3:53 am

Subject: WHERE OBAMA STANDS

Now you know.

Click on the youtube site below…………………it is ugly, but explains where we are today………. everyone needs to view this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_p.....SWSzY#t=28

Comment from Pete
Time November 5, 2009 at 4:35 am

Doesn’t take much of anything to bring forth the hatred, bitterness, personal-failures, psychopathicity of the typical Republiscum, does it?? The NRA/KKK/NASCAR “Little People” speak out again! Yup. Lack of education, exposure, tutorial learning will take you right there! Yup.

Comment from geoff
Time November 5, 2009 at 7:39 am

Art (from wiki):
# Canada: During the year 2003, 6.5% of induced abortions were performed between 13 to 16 weeks, 2.2% between 17 to 20 weeks, and 0.8% over 20 weeks. This sample included procedures carried out in hospitals and clinics.
# England and Wales: In 2005, 9% of abortions occurred between 13 to 19 weeks, while 1% occurred at or over 20 weeks.
# New Zealand: In 2003, 2.03% of induced abortions were done between weeks 16 to 19, and 0.56% were done over 20 weeks.
# Norway: In 2005, 2.28% of induced abortions were performed between 13 to 16 weeks, 1.24% of abortions between 17 and 20 weeks, and 0.20% over 21 weeks.
# Scotland: In 2005, 6.1% of abortions were done between 14 to 17 weeks, while 1.6% were performed over 18 weeks.
# Sweden: In 2005, 5.6% of abortions were carried out between 12 and 17 weeks, and 0.8% at or greater than 18 weeks.
# United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks. Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there are no precise data for the number of abortions performed after viability. In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year.

Comment from geoff
Time November 5, 2009 at 7:42 am

Interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_term_abortion#Incidence_of_later_abortion):
Reasons for late-term abortions:
71% Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn’t know timing is important
5% Woman didn’t know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other
Might suggest a need for better sex ed, if nothing else.

Comment from David McCaleb
Time November 5, 2009 at 12:05 pm

Hey Rob,
is this really what you want people to see? Obama has written 2 books stating that parts of his family are Muslim. He has Christian roots as well. Throwing that edited, religion-baiting Vid out as if it’s a revelation is embarassing. No really, I’m embarrassed for you. Islam is just a religion, not the boogy man. Al Qaida, Taliban and others are extremists that abuse their own religion for their own purposes. There are many estimates, but it looks to me like there are about 2.5 Mil. Muslims in the US, with many higher estimates one can find. You wanna hate em all?

Comment from Qb360
Time November 5, 2009 at 12:19 pm

Finally, a decent column written by a journalist with some morals. There IS right and wrong, and I always choose to back the candidate standing up for what’s right, whether Republican or Democrat or Independent. Abortion is murder of an innocent human being and the Republican party needs to proclaim this loudly and with conviction and stick to their tradition of defending life. Murder-supporting, faux Republicans should not be welcome!

Comment from Robert Lucien
Time November 5, 2009 at 1:11 pm

Extremism over moderation?, moral absolutism? no wonder they call them the “Christian Taliban”. Moral absolutism “I am good anyone who opposes me is by definition evil” is what lead to 9/11, fundamentalist Islam wants to destroy the west because it is evil and corrupt. Fundamentalist conservative Christians want to destroy it for the same reason.
The real problem with America today is that the right have infected everything, and the far right ‘conservatives’ have infected to many of the moderate right. When we look to the left exactly the same thing happened except earlier. Extreme political correctness under the banner of ‘liberal’ has given the word liberal a bad name. (A lot of ultra conservative propaganda helped) At its worst liberalism is prone to become fascism but then at its worst conservatism is prone to become religious fanaticism which is arguably worse. Maybe a few of the right need to be carted off to mental asylums to cool down for a while.

Comment from Call Me Conservative, but…
Time November 5, 2009 at 1:43 pm

Rob…I’m definitely a black and white kind of guy… Good one!!!

Comment from m.s. granado
Time November 5, 2009 at 1:55 pm

Let’s see: The christian taliban want less government, So, they want to get between a woman and her doctor in the most private of areas; So, they want to tell consenting adults who they can or cannot marry; So, they want to tell me what I can or cannot read, what kind of movie I can or cannot see, what kind of art I may or may not like or even be available to me.
Hmm.

Comment from LHAM
Time November 5, 2009 at 3:54 pm

Phil is glib and indeed skillful in explaining the old cliche \\"you can\\\’t have it both ways, you are either for it, or against it\\". And most would agree that there is a lot to be learned through civil debate about the \\"truth\\", meaning, long term and short term impacts of both viewpoints. Unfortunately, apparently Phil adheres to the unhelpful point of view that there is \\"no other way\\" to look for solutions to genuine disagreements about what is \\"wrong\\" and what is \\"correct\\" without ever acknowledging even the possibility that no ONE of us is in possession of the \\"correct\\" view, or
\\"answer\\". Also, unfortunately, there are plenty of people who are convinced that they are in possession of some kind of absolute truth about how things ought to be and are convinced that their view is so correct that they should be \\"ordained\\" to impose their view on anyone or any group who would disagree, even to the point of coercing compliance by whatever level of violence it takes. That is the logical extension of Phil\\\’s approach - crudely put, \\"it\\\’s my way or the highway; if you aren\\\’t with me you are against me and that makes YOU, my enemy.\\" That approach has been the most used tool for control of large groups of humans for centuries. It\\\’s there in the history books - just look for titles like King, Queen, Pope, Hiis/Her Holiness, Shaman, Medicine Man, Glorious Leader, etc. It\\\’s cheap and it works and it inbreeds a respect and desire for gaining power over others that is not likely to disappear from the human genome any time soon.

Cheers to all.

Comment from Tim Stocken
Time November 5, 2009 at 4:18 pm

I have Roman Catholic and other friends who consider abortion a sin. I have friends on the right who wish to overturn Roe v. Wade and make abortion illegal. I have female friends who demand that the choice should be theirs. I respect all of their opinions and the arguments to back them up. I personally find abortion to be repulsive, but I am glad my body makes the choice moot. I doubt I could abort an unborn child - they all give me such warmth, cheer and optimism - but my hormones make my decision unclear.

To those who wish to make the act illegal I ask - Just how would you punish the woman? How would you punish the doctor? There is no doubt a life is at stake, but are not two lives often at stake? Young people are far from experienced rational thinkers and results could vary with the width of a novelist’s imagination. A decision would be easier if a coat hanger could be taken out of the equation, but desperation will always make that an alternative.

I am comfortable with my feeling that this is a moral question between one and their God, not a political decision. By taking the procedure out of a quality medical facility and placing it back into an alleyway is not helping anyone. Let’s keep political discussion to the military, economy, schools, infrastructure and quality of life. After all possible alternatives are made clear, moral decisions should be dealt with a higher form of intelligence than ours alone…

Comment from Harry Q
Time November 5, 2009 at 5:42 pm

Conservatives claim to want less government. Then they want more government in our personal lives. A Democrat wins NY23. Many conservatives claim a victory.Apparently Limbaugh is not the only one doing too many drugs.

Comment from Stug
Time November 5, 2009 at 5:42 pm

\"Finally, a decent column written by a journalist with some morals.\"
I thought Phil wrote it. Oh well, I suppose he was only described as having morals as opposed to intelligence. I believe naming him a journalist is laughable, propagandist more like.

Oh yeah… definitely black and white!

Comment from geoff
Time November 5, 2009 at 7:34 pm

Qb360: “the Republican party needs to proclaim this loudly and with conviction and stick to their tradition of defending life.” Except when it comes to capital punishment. I’ve always found that contradictory.

Comment from Cal
Time November 5, 2009 at 8:48 pm

Doctor ellis. Since my dad passed away in 1996 I haven’t had someone your age to try and lecture me on how life really is. Somehow, I’ve managed to limp along on my own but I’m grateful you take time out of your busy life to try and keep me from falling off the rails. My dad was a lot like you. He thought he knew everything and never really talked _with_ anyone. He just talked _to_ them and told them “how it is.” May I call you “Dad?”

“Christian Taliban.” I’d expect nothing less from the most tolerant among us. Whenever I see “Pete” or “msgranado” drop by I know I’m in for an intellectual taste treat. You guys are both so on top of your game!

Rob, is sepia a choice for the photograph? It just hides wrinkles so well. Hey, is botox covered under government health care?

Comment from Marye
Time November 5, 2009 at 10:06 pm

Time for a third party??

Comment from jim
Time November 6, 2009 at 8:28 pm

There’s an old Chinese saying: “Moderation in all things, but don’t over-do it.”

The disintegration of BOTH politcal parties should be a breath of fresh air for all Americans who loathe the extremist policies of either side, and wish for moderate, intelligent, compromising approaches to getting the necessary work of running a nation done in real American fashion.

You know, kind of like the way the Founding Fathers imagined it might go when they created this nation with their own wisdom and blood.

It is disturbing at times to see and hear all the idiotic finger-pointing and blaming of anyone on any side by those who seem to have no intelligence or ability to actually look at what needs to be done, and just simply do it.

You know, like the barn is on fire and instead of getting water going to put it out, they argue about whose fault it is.

Comment from Cal
Time November 6, 2009 at 8:54 pm

Tim Stocken. I don’t speak for anyone else but all the conservatives I know want to stop federal funding for abortion. While we are all pro life and would like to see Roe v Wade repealed because it is bad law that isn’t a priority. Let each state decide what it wants to do wrt abortion but let it be done through the legislature, not the courts. Courts don’t make law per the constitution but this is what liberal justices have wrought—legislating from the bench.

I’m sure there is a very small percentage of conservatives that wants to ban abortion but I have never met anyone who does. Roe v Wade is now “settled law” or “stari decisis. No matter how poorly it was written, it has been the law of the land long enough it won’t be overturned. So no worries, mate. Women will be free to kill their children to their heart’s content.

I’ll never understand the focus on the women who made a choice in 99% of the cases over the child who didn’t. And please, spare me the horror stories of rape and incest and back alley butchers. That’s a red herring to cover up for the real reason women choose abortion—avoiding being “inconvenienced.” Virtually all abortions are done for convenience alone. The child is killed so the mother doesn’t have to interrupt her lifestyle. That is just about the saddest commentary on life in America I can think of. And liberals herald unfettered abortion as a victory. For whom? Certainly not the child.

Stug says: “I believe naming him a journalist is laughable, propagandist more like.” Stug, you’re confusing Brennan with Lyons.

Comment from Tim Stocken
Time November 6, 2009 at 9:28 pm

Cal: I don’t believe funding for abortion should be present in the health care reform bill because it is too controversial and this bill has enough trouble as it is. I stop short of any federal funding in the future, because unlike you I have seen first hand a rape eerily similar to the situation in Dirty Dancing. That woman survived to earn two doctorates, became a wonderful mother and a most productive member of society. I wish I could say it was I who let her get away, but she left me for Shakespeare and a degree in creative writing. My loss - everyone else’s gain.

I find your wording interesting on women being free to kill their children, but I think my mother’s tone on the subject was a bit more humane. An extremely devout woman, my mom said, “If a woman wants to kill her own, what chance in life would that child have if she was forced to have it.” I also remember a discussion I had with a born again minister on the subject. He said there were plenty of people looking to adopt. This was a while back when there were many black children available for adoption, which I brought up. “No one should have to adopt a crack baby,” was his compassionate response. Praise the Lord…

I notice you used “virtually” and 99%. Surely that small amount has rights as well. Believe me, rape is a far greater crime than you seem to realize, as is incest…

Johnny Damon’s play was one for the ages. I hope the Yankees offer both him and Godzilla long term deals somewhat below market value, with the condition they would serve out the contracts for personal services once their playing days are over. Matsui would be great as a scout or director for player development in Asia and Damon would make a great coach and spokesperson…

Comment from Stug
Time November 6, 2009 at 10:22 pm

“Stug, you’re confusing Brennan with Lyons.” - Nope

Tim - well said.

Comment from Just another vet
Time November 7, 2009 at 12:24 am

When I was in college for my undergraduate degree, and still had delusions of going to medical school, I took a medical ethics course. I did not go on to medical school, but I ended up taking a minor in Philosophy because of the mental stimulation it provided.

Few people outside of the field of Medical Ethics would have become familiar with Judith Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion”, but I don’t think you can rationally form an argument one way or another about it without using it as a starting point. To quote N. Ann Davis’ “Reflections on ‘A Defense of Abortion’”, “It was not mearly that one could not defend restrictive (or: permissive) views about abortion simply by asserting (or: denying) that the fetus was a person, or by asserting (or: denying) that the fetus, as a person possessed rights to life. What Thomson showed was that those who sought to advance a view about the permissibility or impermissibility of abortion had to address a host of larger questions about the structure, scope, and force of the protections that rights were thought to confer upon an individual, and about when (and why) it was that the possession of a right to life should be thought to confer protection against being killed.”

From reading the discussions in this column, I doubt that many would understand, much less appreciate the impact Thomson’s work had on the study of moral theory, but for those of you that can tolerate some mental stimulation, I encourage you to read ” A Defense of Abortion”. Unfortunately, most people are like those in my introductory philosophy class, stubornly unable to view a problem from another’s point of view even if it meant failing the class.

Comment from Cal
Time November 8, 2009 at 12:58 am

Tim, Here again your focus is on “the woman I met” or “the story I heard” or “rape is a bigger problem than you think.” What about the 99% (or let’s say 84% as I just toss out numbers) of women who are killing their children for the sake of convenience? IS THAT OKAY? Your mother’s response was also telling. It was used more as a justification to say, “Well, yeah, I guess we can’t stop this” rather than finding a better quote to get young women to stop committing murder. Is my anecdotal story any better? A female teacher recently shared with me that her mother was raped and came very close to having an abortion. She said her mother has told her many times how grateful she is she carried her to term. Poverty is also an often used excuse. Have you ever met a poor person who says, “I wish I’d never been born than to be poor.” That means I should have been aborted, too. My parents were far too poor to afford another child after the first being born blind and my dad working in a sawmill.

I’m with the innocent child 100% of the time. Why aren’t you?

Comment from drhill
Time November 8, 2009 at 1:11 am

>>>so-called woman’s right to choose to butcher the infant in her womb<<<, murdering innocent babies is not a right. I have yet to hear an intelligent explanation as to why the unborn child does not have any rights. If the fetus is not prematurely stopped, aborted, killed, it will grow into a human being, that, if asked, would very likely express an interest in choosing for themself if they are to live or not. Moderation in all things is not only a bad idea - it is impossible. Good article.

Comment from Tim Stocken
Time November 8, 2009 at 8:13 am

Cal - Because I am not God. It’s so easy for a male to take your view. I don’t notice a lot of women posting your view here or anywhere else. I think the only reason you responded again was because of Stug’s comment of, “Well said.” Yours is a typical right wing retort. One liberal making a statement is just another wacko, but when a second joins in, it’s lookout, WE HAVE A MOVEMENT…

To you, it’s convenience. You are the one holier than thou. You seem to be so above it all that you assume the position of judge. Where are all of you high and mighty types once the child is born? Where is your concern then? Or do you hate the poor so much that you want all the more to condemn? As I have stated before, I believe in doing everything possible to convince a woman not to go the abortion route. If you didn’t understand me before, I will repeat it this final time. The law won’t be overturned? Good lord, there are people talking about a constitutional amendment… The fact is that there will STILL be women who will seek an abortion. Your comment that there are only a small percentage of conservatives who want to put an end to legal abortion is not just inaccurate, it is naive. Read the papers - there are people out there killing doctors and others supporting THEIR murders. Do you think this is just made up by the so-called liberal media?

Of course, “the woman you met,” is legitimate, while mine is not. What a big shot you are to downplay rape. There are different degrees of rape and different ways women (and men) deal with it. Because you are above it all (and again, I might add, never wrong,) you know more about how someone else goes through the trauma that they do. What a guy…

Comment from geoff
Time November 8, 2009 at 11:29 am

drhill: when was the last time you were pregnant? Granted, maybe children should have more rights, and be allowed to vote, decide if they want to drive cars or drink or do drugs, etc., but we’ve sort of decided to limit their rights until they reach a certain age.
The problem with a man making decisions about abortion or even commenting on the issue is that, one way or another, men are let off easy. They’re not carrying fetuses around for 9 months, and all-too-often only indirectly responsible for their care for the years after that. You do remember that your constitution does say something about “all men” being “created equal.” When it comes to bearing the responsibilities of having sex, women aren’t quite equal, are they? Guys can and do make all kinds of promises and then get up and walk away.
And Cal: get some stats and stop making things up all the time. You’ll notice that the list I posted did not include “convenience” as the cause of 99% of “late term” abortions.

Comment from Cal
Time November 8, 2009 at 8:56 pm

Tim, Why does pointing out facts bother you so much? Why are you afraid to answer a question rather than just use accusations as an attempted response?

What do _you_ think the percentage is of abortions done just for convenience? Are those okay? Just kill the child to keep from “harshing your mellow”, right? Make a mistake, and “kill it before it grows” to quote a Clapton song. Also, what does being male have to do with the issue? We are half the planet’s population and have every right to pose questions and join in on any debate. Your indignation is irrelevant as far as a response goes. Claiming I’m “minimizing rape” (which I’m not) is yet another deflection to avoid having to deal with the hundreds of thousands of abortions done for convenience alone. I’ll turn your argument around and say that’s just a typical liberal kneejerk answer to avoid addressing the real question. How many abortions are done each year that don’t involve rape or incest? Regardless of the number/percent, you’re okay with that, right? You know, “woman’s body/woman’s choice” and all that. But the fundamental question is, “What about the baby she’s killing?” What right does it have? What “choice” can it make?

So sling platitudes if it makes you feel like a true defender of women’s rights. I’ll take the child’s side every time. They didn’t ask to be conceived and given a voice you can bet YOUR life they wouldn’t vote to be scraped out of their mother’s womb because they’re an “inconvenience.” Perhaps you’ll make an attempt to answer the questions this time and spare me the NARAL speech.

Comment from geoff
Time November 8, 2009 at 9:07 pm

O Cal the omniscient: women would not risk their lives for illegal, back-alley abortions if it was just a matter of “convenience.” Dying is not particularly convenient. Give us some facts, dude, not your wishful thinking.
How about some inconvenient truth:
“Four in every five Americans begin having intercourse before age 20. Many of the youngest women in this group (70% of those age 13 or under) report having had sex forced on them. By the time they turn 20, about 40% of American women have been pregnant at least once. Many of these young women have little understanding of their bodies and have begun having sexual intercourse before knowing about ways to prevent pregnancy.
“Because teens in other developed countries receive more education about sexuality and have more access to contraception and family planning services, they have much lower rates of pregnancy and abortion. For example, in the Netherlands, where teenage sexual activity is about the same as in the U.S., pregnancy rates are only one-ninth those of the United States.”
But it’s much easier to rant against “convenience” rather than give some decent sex ed: http://www.prochoice.org/about.....women.html

Comment from geoff
Time November 8, 2009 at 9:09 pm

More (http://women.webmd.com/tc/abortion-reasons-women-choose-abortion):
The most common reasons women consider abortion are:
* Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.3
* Inability to support or care for a child.
* To end an unwanted pregnancy.
* To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done.
* Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
* Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman’s health if the pregnancy is continued.
There’s this thing called “google,” Cal, which means you don’t have to make stuff up, you can actually find information if you want it.

Comment from Tim Stocken
Time November 9, 2009 at 1:07 am

Cal: I don\’t know what you want me to say. You want me to go against my core beliefs? I have already stated and for the last time, I do not agree with abortion and would do all in my power to convince a woman from having one. I don\’t believe if I was a woman I would ever have one, but I am not as close to God as you apparently are and do not know how rape, medical or any of a dozen other situations would affect me if my hormones were different. I envy your obvious insight into the Almighty, although deep down, I would be afraid to possess and do not deserve such power. If what I consider empathy, you see as cowardice, so be it. I would never presume to have such judgmental rights.

Women have had their decision making on many life issues taken away from them for centuries. There are just some things that are beyond my capacity. For example, I am personally against torture for any reason, but I have never been in combat situations and will yield my decision on such matters to those who have been there.

You would really eliminate proper medical facilities for a woman making this desperate choice? I can\’t imagine how they could live the rest of their life with the guilt they must forever feel. I realize there is far greater intelligence in the universe that what resides in my meager brain. You are one lucky guy to be so all-knowing.

By the way, you have failed to answer my questions as to how you would punish women or their doctors for what you obviously consider moral and/or legal crimes…

Comment from waybert
Time November 11, 2009 at 3:34 am

It was really better when the abortion issue was not a federal issue, but a issue that was contested at the state level. This was a system that allowed the majority (voters) to decided what they wanted to do about the abortion issue…without the federal government having any ability to be pro or con on the issue.

As for the politicians of our time, I don’t really care whether they are “liberals” or “conservatives,” as long as they are able to articulate their political views…and are able to explain how they reached that view, and, most importantly, have the courage to tell the voter that they are “liberal” or conservative.” Did anyone really hear McCain present a conservative agenda for his presidency….did anyone really hear Obama present a liberal agenda for government. Did they not both try to speak as little as they could on the issues, clouding the issues, not really being clear what their political agenda would do to the country? I am a person who is more sad, than angry, about what is going on in our country, and very, what is the word, sick of politicians running on the issues a certain way….then governing a different way when they get into office. Bush ran as a “conservative,” but then spent more money (money we didn’t have) than any other President….till the coming of Obama. Now, it appears we will have trillion dollar a year deficits as far as the eye can see. I blame both major parties for the economic mess we find ourselves in today….both, from the Clinton time through the Bush time was involved in the mortgage scandal that eventually toppled our economy. In 2006, we put the Democrats in charge of Congress, expecting them to be different than the sprendthrift Republican Congress of the Bush years. We really saw how well that went didn’t we….what has happened to the economy from the Democrats taking over Congress in January 2007 to this date (November 2009)? Please save the excuses, these big shot Republicans and the big shot Democrats are to blame for the present economic shutdown of our economy….and you really they, having made the mess with their politcal programs, are going to fix it?

Comment from geoff
Time November 11, 2009 at 7:58 am

waybert: “It was really better when the abortion issue was not a federal issue, but a issue that was contested at the state level.”
Maybe it would be best if it was just an issue between a woman, her doctor, and maybe whoever got her pregnant: keep gov’t out of it.

Comment from Stug
Time November 11, 2009 at 4:01 pm

Waybert: And with a couple of alterations:
“It was really better when the slavery issue was not a federal issue, but a issue that was contested at the state level. This was a system that allowed the majority (voters) to decided what they wanted to do about the slavery issue…without the federal government having any ability to be pro or con on the issue.”
- Wow, a very profound comment on your view of how an individual’s rights should be protected, or not, in our country. Obviously this was never actually the case with slavery, nor do I intend to imply that you would approve of slavery by way of my comparison. My point is that the majority of a population should not be permitted to decide on whether or not particular rights should be accorded to a minority of the population.

Comment from poe
Time November 18, 2009 at 6:33 am

who here has read the Roe V Wade decision? Where the supreme court of The United States said that they could not make a ruling on an issue that is not discussed in the constitution because such a ruling would be legislation and thus outside the jurisdiction of the court, Roe V Wade is legal precedent and not law. if a state wishes to legislate (ie pass a law regarding the legality of abortion in that district) against any type of abortion they are allowed to do so, as long as they do not interfere with civil liberties or inter-state commerce, by jailing mothers who get the procedure done in another district or jailing doctors whose offices are in other districts. since such legislation would have no teeth because of these restrictions most legislators don’t waste their time on anything but late term abortion and underage pregnancy.