Mark,

"Can anyone find me even one example of a pastor or grandparent taking a child across State lines to obtain an abortion? If it ever has happened, then it certainly is the rarest of all birds"

--This coming from the party which wanted us to eat the "I can't find anyone actually doing it", Flag burning Amendment, or the non-existant poor-farmer who lost his farm due to the "death-tax".

let me get my tiny violin tuned up for you.

Are you so blind from the sight of staring at your ankles for 6 years, that you're willing to swallow the government reaching it's hands into family matters, so they can tell you, "It's ok, we will take care of you, and save you from those "other" people"?

Why are you so obsessed with calling a group of people irrational?

So the government should be there to support "people" ie. universal health care, minimum wages, social security, determine what cars we drive thru fuel standards, decide that they should control our lives to "fix" the environment, but the government then cannot legislate what a majority of the American people want to happen such as the death tax, the flag burning amendment and the gay marriage issue?

WTF?

NOW THAT'S A HYPOCRITICAL VIEW... But that's probaly what the Third Eye does... RIGHT TEO?

From someone so "committed" to the little guy, TEO your absolute disdain and contempt for the most vulnerable and innocent of our society is incredible. Your hypocrisy is staggering.

I will bet $50 you are unmarried and childless. Besides being a mindless liberal who parrots the party line with the predictability of the sun setting and rising I mean...

Mark,

Abortion = 4,000 murdered babies every day. That's 4,000 yesterday, 4,000 today, 4,000 tommorrow, etc., etc., etc. The abortionists can justify, rationalize and twist logic around like a pretzal, but you can only spin 4,000 murdered babies per day, so much.

Mark, I think your post on the childishness of Libs got Eye's little brown eye all in a pucker. He is so wound up, he is even making your point for you, commenting on the government reaching into family matters and taking over---the exact point you were trying to make. He tried to get there by only making left turns, so it's a little (typically) muddled, but even he seems to have a basic aversion to interference in family matters.

Eye, read Western Livestock Journal to learn about some of those farm families you claim don't exist. Talk to farmers. Don't keep depending on Al and Ranty for your "information". Because if you don't get your head out of that eye, the view never changes.

Mark....I have watched, with great concern, the Left's continuing and often successful efforts to destroy the American family. I see this as just another step on that journey.

A partial list:

Encouraging dependence on government programs for sustenance (welfare, to you Libs) and then not giving that money to women whose husbands were in the home, thereby creating an industry where girls could be supported by the government if they had children and did not have husbands---and the more children, the more money. This has led to generations of children who have grown up in fatherless households, and with a welfare mentality---two characteristics which lead, almost inevitably, to drug use, gangs, crime, and most certainly the continuation of the fatherless family/welfare mentality that is totally nonproductive and profoundly harmful to society. (Though it is, coincidentally (?) a guaranteed source of votes for the Left.)

Subverting parental influence by not just teaching kids the facts of life in schools but by actively promoting sexual activity by ridiculing the concept of abstinence, by teaching children how to use birth control, by providing birth control, and by spreading the message that there are no consequences to sexual activity, with abortion the answer to pregnancies.

And now continuing the subversion of parental influence by trying to legislate ways to keep parents out of the most important decision their children will ever make---that of taking another life.

It's not just about whether or not the fetus is a person. It's not just about the impact on a young girl's life to have to live with someone else's decision. It's not just about the ability for a criminal to destroy the evidence of his crime, with the blessing of the law. It's about telling children that tney do not have to honor or respect their parents, they do not have to turn to them as the primary authority or influence in their young lives, and furthermore that they should NOT turn to them first. It arbitrarily strips parents of the most essential aspects of true parenthood---the protection, guidance, and nurturing of their children.

Look at any child and his or her perception of the world. I quoted a woman on another thread as saying that when she asked her young daughters what they thought would happen if they came home pregnant, their responses were that they thought she would "kill" them. This is not really hyperbole. Children do think in such exaggerated and cartoon-like absolutes. When she said of course not, that she loved them more than anything in the world and that nothing could ever change that, and they would face any problem any of them had together, the girls were astounded.

To deprive frightened and confused young girls of that kind of loving assurance, that kind of lesson about the power of love and the meaning of family, is beyond despicable. To pretend that this would be done in the best interest of the child is simply more Orwellian doublespeak. And to cite imaginary consequences of imaginary children facing imaginary punishment from imaginary parents to justify this kind of intolerable interference into family dynamics is a typical, but deeply flawed, argument. If there is a chance of a young girl being victimized by a parent, then legislate a protective mechanism. Legislate an entity which can shelter the girl until they determine her risk level. But don't just appoint others to step into the role of parents at a time like this.

This is NOT about abortion. This is about the intrusion of government into the family unit, with nothing but devastating results. The fact that it involves the destruction of life, and the imposition of a political philosophy on a young girl regardless of its future consequences, is secondary to the primary goal of weakening the family.

I will bet $50 you are unmarried and childless. Besides being a mindless liberal who parrots the party line with the predictability of the sun setting and rising I mean...

What do you expect from a troll?

GOP,

Who made you and your ilk the biological and moral barometers of America, why does your view about when, where, and how life begins become the standard?

Abortion obviously existed when the constitution was written, if it was such a horrible practice that made everyone of any moral standing sick to their stomach, why didn't they mention it in the constitution, why not in English common law until "quickening", and even after it was merely a misdemeanor?

Why don't you worry about your government sticking its nose into family issues, and stop worry about who is, and isn't having kids?

Why don't you worry about getting lost, troll?

Mark,

You made a good point that I had never heard before. I am pro-life, but have never heard that argument. It's a good one. Just don't say it so obvious when even pro-life folks don't know about it.

I don't consider myself on one extreme or the other, but I would have to believe this is being pushed by the Left for the best of intentions. There are countless reasons a young girl couldn't come to their parent with news of being pregnent. And if that is the case, what is she to do? A back alley abortion? Suicide?

I'd rather she didn't have an abortion, but if she can't go to a parent then I don't think the State should be able to force her one way or the other.

Abortion obviously existed when the constitution was written, if it was such a horrible practice that made everyone of any moral standing sick to their stomach, why didn't they mention it in the constitution.... (emphasis - mine)

You're pulling our leg, right, TEO? You're probably too young to remember, but the Supreme Court discovered on January 22, 1973,/a> in a penumbra to the Bill of Rights, the absolute, unlimited right to an abortion. It was on the news and in all the papers at the time.

here's a copy of the Constitution. Go check it out -- it's right there in black and white (or maybe gray).

Orwellian doublespeak

It's so funny when you blather on about Orwellian doublespeak, completely turning a blind eye to the fact that it's your guys who have made Orwellian doublespeak a major political plank. Onward, ign'ant soldiers!

So, Mark, does "traditional morality" mean forcing a rape victim to bear her attacker's child a la South Dakota? I'm just wondering how "traditional" we're talking here.

Well, I screwed up that link royally.

Here's a copy of the Constitution

HEY TEO:

When did YOU and your failed ideology get to be the biological and moral barometer of America either?

Perhaps as history points out, we've always had these debates and history is full of ebbs and flows.

But I encourage you to stick to your beliefs: Hatred of anything Bush says is good; Abortion served on demand to 12 years who don't need to have their parents's permission; letting this country be attacked unmercilessly by the people you support (Terrorists); supporting democrats who hypocritically claim to be "ethical" when they aren't.

I don't know if it's pity I feel towards you or if it's anger that you could support repugnant behavior that you advocate. Throw in a Peace! and you'd be as bad as Steve.

Retired,

the right to privacy was found in that penumbra, not abortion.

there is your gray area.

You still didn't answer the question. If the act was so despised, why was it only a misdemeanor in English Common Law? And why was it a crime only AFTER "quickening"?

RS:

Don't waste your time with the troll. It hasn't "quickened" yet and when it does, hopefully it will get lost.

And why was it a crime only AFTER "quickening"?

Because they didn't have sonograms..Geeze. A heart is beating by 6 weeks. Brain waves can be detected. All this we didn't see in 1973. It's time to reverse this terrible wrong.

TEO, Abortion is a family issue? The mother is the family? Why don't the father, the abortee, siblings, grandparents have any say?

Quite honestly, Reverend, I don't know why the board ops let the little trolls post here. They certainly don't ad any intellectual discourse to the conversations here. In fact, you can usually predict exactly what they'll say.

The very first match on Google?, TEO? Your search skills are truly impressive.

You still didn't answer the question. If the act was so despised, why was it only a misdemeanor in English Common Law? And why was it a crime only AFTER "quickening"?

Just a wild guess, but I suspect that the procedure rightly termed "partial birth abortion" did not exist back then, and millions of women didn't use abortion as after-the-fact birth control.

Retired,

Actually it was the 3rd. The point still remains.

"Just a wild guess, but I suspect that the procedure rightly termed "partial birth abortion" did not exist back then, and millions of women didn't use abortion as after-the-fact birth control."

--Naw, proably if it got to that point, they just carried it to term and then left it to die, or threw it in a river, sort of like what happens in certain cases today.

I don't know where you get your numbers, but being that the act of contraception dates far back into history, and probably before written history, I would argue that the abortion by silphium, mercury, arsenic, pennyroyal and black cohosh teas, etc. were well known and used.

Retired,

Actually it was the 3rd. The point still remains.

"Just a wild guess, but I suspect that the procedure rightly termed "partial birth abortion" did not exist back then, and millions of women didn't use abortion as after-the-fact birth control."

--Naw, proably if it got to that point, they just carried it to term and then left it to die, or threw it in a river, sort of like what happens in certain cases today.

I don't know where you get your numbers, but being that the act of contraception dates far back into history, and probably before written history, I would argue that the abortion by silphium, mercury, arsenic, pennyroyal and black cohosh teas, etc. were well known and used.

...were well known and used.

Spoken like a true genocidal troll. Get lost.

Blue screen again/yet? Why can't you guys get this thing fixed?

Mark, great post!

Almiranta, great comment!! as usual! Loved it. And I love the 3rd eye as the "brown" "eye" that's always open for dunkey dung to ooz out because the muscle(sphincter) there controlling the gate is long gone due to various reasons that you guys have noticed. Absolutely hilarious!! and true!

Hey Almiranta, if you ever run for any kind of public office, although I don't live in your state (me in California), I would run to vote for you. And tell all my family members and friends about you so they can dot your bubble too.

"...they just carried it to term and then left it to die...by silphium, mercury, arsenic, pennyroyal and black cohosh teas..."

wow, you are so wise and historically knowledgeable about such personal matters of females babarically killing their own young. you must of witnessed them first hand with your own eyes as a common practice of women before the modern abortion methods are invented cus you didn't list any sources. so you must of see them done. and so you must be a really old vampire or your brown eye must be really really wrinkly.

Rev Redux,

What do YOU suppose women who didn't want their babies, and carried them to term did?

The practice of aborting pregnancies are well documented through history and culture, educate yourself.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/silphium/silphium2.htm

Riddle, John M. (1999). Eve's Herbs: A History of Contraception and Abortion in the West. Harvard MA: Harvard University Press.

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

etc. etc. etc.

case in point, my cousin (who was raped at 17) and for fear of telling her alcoholic father, and in absence of a mother... relied on my grandmother (hardcore southern baptist George Bush FANATIC) to take her from Mississippi where BOTH parents are required to be notified. (some stipulations apply... i.e. divorce)

While I do not totally agree with abortion, it is not a black and white situation. Not all circumstances are the same. Not every girl is "asking for it" when it comes to date rape. Not every girl is elated once the pregnancy is terminated. My cousin, to this day, laments what she has done. But to hear her talk of how she would have to relive her experience everytime she looked into the childs eyes, is heart wrenching. She constantly is torn between her action then, and the action of having to tell a child she doesn't want that child to have anything to do with the father... even though he is in the same town. And all the amount of love can not always ovride the horror of rape.

why would it surprise you that there are families out there who have no communication? Just because you have a "family" does not always make it a loving family. In all my years living in the Mississippi Delta, I have known more girls who have had abortions at the REQUEST of their family. Why? because in small towns like Greenville, MS, family rep is more important than the unborn. redstate values?

What do YOU suppose women...

Sorry, I don't debate with trolls. Get lost, troll.

PS: I have something you can do to yourself, too, but I can't say it on this blog. Use your limited imagination, troll.

Rev, From what I see you're right that you
don't debate. I 've been reading this blog for
a while and all I see from you is dumbass remarks.

"dumbass remarks" speared at dumbass trolls with their head stuck up their brown eye. Fitting, don't ya think? That's already more than what these trolls deserve.

Rev Redux pt.2,

What is that noise?

It's the WAH-BULANCE!

if you want to debate, then fine, I welcome it, otherwise you're just showing how ignorant you truly are.

Mark,

I think we can all agree that we are ALL TIRED OF TEO posting here, So could you ask him to leave or ban him or something?

TEO, may want to debate, but he's only here to brainwash people into his demented evil ways, and which from what I am seeing here (comments from others)it just goes to prove it!

Jeremiah

I'm not tired of TEO, Jeremiah.

I do not read The Rev very often since he made such ignorant remarks about my wife who never posts here. I also don't read your John3:16mumbojumbo. But I will defend till the death your right to proselytize and the Rev's right to spew hate. So why can't you tolerate someone who's opinions differ from yours?

It's like just look over them, pray for them, or whatever.

Ash,

maybe no one told these guys that the more people mark and Matt get on this blog, right or left, the more advertising they can charge for. It doesn't matter who is here, as long as they keep coming back, this is why Mark and Matt choose such inane, one-sided stories, and then throw us the red-meat to carp at eachother about...but it helps kill a day. LOL

ASH,

IT'S TIME FOR TEO TO GO!!

I don't read his nor your hypocritical kimchee!!
And really don't care what you say!!

But I pray that some day you will actually come to your senses and see the error in your follies!!

Jeremiah

Ash,

No worries, jerry is just upset that I don't bother to reply to his drivel...

Lord, protect me from your followers

March 18, 2006 Blogging Note - Please Read

We here at Blogs for Bush encourage lively debate. On a personal level, we love the give and take of an argument about an event, policy or person. We welcome debate.

That said, a good number of our readers have been taking liberties with the blog - and this goes for people on both sides of the ideological divide. We do have a comment policy, and we ask that everyone read it. What we'd like to do is lay down some ground rules which will be rigorously enforced from now on.

1. Do not insult. Our definition of insult is to call someone a name, or corrupt their nom-de-blog in a scurrilous way.

2. No foul language. If you are unsure whether a particular word is foul, then don't use it. When in doubt, leave it out.

3. Stay on topic. There's a lot of flexibility in here, but think about what you are saying - is it actually relevant to the dicsussion at hand? If you believe we are missing some vital subject of discussion, then please let us know. We're more than happy to accomodate, with the understanding that we can't talk about everything every day.

As a general rule, please keep comments polite and to the point - we want this place to be both fun and interesting to visit. As for the past, we're going to let bygones be bygones - and we expect everyone else to do the same. To forgive is a noble thing - so drop any animosities that have built up and start with a clean slate.

Comments which violate the comment policy will be deleted and people who persistently violate the policy will eventually be banned. If you want to be immediately banned, then please complain about the comment policy.

Posted by Mark Noonan at March 18, 2006 05:01 AM

...lest we forget...

Georgia,

They don't care man, Mark, least of all, they are getting their hits, and putting more advertising on the site, it's irrelevant who says what and to whom...I just ignore those fools.

(Ed.Note: TEO - if you really believe that, then begone. No one is forcing you to read what we write, nor comment about it, nor answer other people's comments. Who is worse, the person who writes something disagreeable, or the person who comes along with the intention of being as disagreeable as possible?

MN)

Slaw,

Quite simply, I don't believe you - if the grandmother really was a hardcore Baptist, then she simply would not have participated in the murder of a human being at the risk of her immortal soul.

You'll have to come up with a more believable story than that - but, even supposing it is 100% accurate, it is just one example...hard cases make bad law. For each situation where there is no parent to give consent and no provision for a judge to make a ruling (something I don't think exists in any of the 50 States, including MS), there are 100 examples of some disgusting man trying to hide the evidence of his depravity.

While I do not totally agree with abortion

That's rich!

Hey slaw, why did the grandma not report the rape to the authorities? seems like that should have been step one. Steo two, report the abusive alcoholic father, step three, find somewhere safe for the girl to go. Then and only then should the abortion issue even come up. I think you knew that though right?

Private citizens should promote morality and personal responsibility; the government shouldn't be mandating it.

"The only person who would likely ever want to take a child across State lines to obtain an abortion is the pervert who got the child pregnant and is trying to destroy the evidence. It is plain common sense that for every grandparent who might conceivably try to do such a thing, there are 100 aged degenerates who are trying to cover up their affair with the babysitter. But we are asked to believe this nonsense - and debate it, and pretend that those advocating it aren't entirely divorced from reality - from truth."

That is very ignorant. I dont like abortion (and I'm a flaming liberal too), but now everybody who wants one has some sick reason to do it. Maybe it was a girl who goes across state lines to get an abortion after an irresponsible night, not a dad who has an affair with a babysitter, thats just small minded.

Private citizens should promote morality and personal responsibility; the government shouldn't be mandating it.

In a democracy, the people ARE the government. The "morality mandates" are there because more people want them than those who do not want them.

For a society to exist and thrive, there must be some kind of order. If there isn't all you have left is chaos and anarchy. If you don't like the laws, get them changed. But they are the voice of the people (excluding the occasional activist judge who thinks he/she knows what's right for everybody.)

Aren't the laws against murder, rape, child incest, child endagerment, seat belts, welfare, scoial security, etc. all "morality laws?" Aren't they all government mandates that promote "morality and personal responsibility?"

I mean I bet there are those who think Murder and Rape are just fine and think the government is "mandating morality" to them. We've mandated morality throughout the creation of laws, I don't see this as any different.

Again though this brings me back to the original subject. This particular discussion is about allowing certain folks or "confidants" to transport minors across state lines to have a medical procedure. How is that a good thing?

Every "exception" or "extreme case" I've heard of often involves a felony of some kind that should be adressed above and before any abortion should be considered.

Is a combination of gay marriage, adolescent abortion and easy access to pornography what you are willing to lay down your lives to defend? Is being opposed to traditional morality so important that you'll swallow anything designed to errode such morality?

Well, one of those three doesn't belong --- can you guess which one?

Who gives a rat's ass about two consenting adults being allowed to get married? There is no "morality" involved in this issue at all - unless you are a right-wing religious freak (read: Jeremiah).

Porno? You're seriously equating porno with abortion? Look, not everybody is as uptight as Republicans --- some of us enjoy alchohol, the occasional joint, and women. It doesn't effect you or anybody else, so stay out of my personal business.

But abortion is another thing altogether. I am still waiting for an answer --- what is so bad about just putting the child up for adoption instead? If you do not want the child that badly, then why not give it to somebody who actually does?

maf,

Didn't say I was getting in to your personal business...I just want to know, in effect, is are you willing to die for abortion, gay marriage and Playboy?

Its a serious question - and the person who should ask it is you, of yourself.

Dan,

I think you might be a bit inattentive here - the law is to ban non-parents from taking minor children across State lines to obtain an abortion...a child taking herself across State lines isn't an issue, and isn't covered.

Just who do you think would be more likely to take a 15 year old across State lines for an abortion - a degenerate, or the child's Pastor?

non-parents taking minor children across State lines

Part of the text of the bill, (full text here) that is the main point of it:

`(1) GENERALLY- Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly transports a minor across a State line, with the intent that such minor obtain an abortion, and thereby in fact abridges the right of a parent under a law requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision, in force in the State where the minor resides, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

`(2) DEFINITION- For the purposes of this subsection, an abridgement of the right of a parent occurs if an abortion is performed on the minor, in a State other than the State where the minor resides, without the parental consent or notification, or the judicial authorization, that would have been required by that law had the abortion been performed in the State where the minor resides.

It clearly states that the parents' rights have been abridged if the abortion law in the state where the minor girl resides mandates parental involvement and the child is taken across state lines to get an abortion with no approval or agreement by the parent(s).

Not being a lawyer, I would have to assume that in most cases, the parent retains those kinds of right in all such types of decisions. What I think is going on here is that when someone crosses a state line to commit a crime the federal government MUST be the law enforcement source and generator of laws that would apply for all 50 states equally.

Two big points: We are talking about a minor child. That child cannot give consent. and secondly, this is written to address someone not the parents from committing the inter-state crime. If the child has been made pregnant by the father or someone living with the mother then there are other remedies, including abortion. But the court MUST order the rights taken away from the parent(s), assign a guardian, and approve said abortion. It is never appropriate, even for a well-meaning relative or clergy to transport a minor, abridging parental rights, and soon violating the law. We are a nation of laws. We must obey them or suffer the consequences. Most pregnancies last 9 months - plenty of time to get this taken care of legally and above board. And as a side-benefit, if abusive parents caused this problem, the girl will be freed from further abuse by the court.

I just want to know, in effect, is are you willing to die for abortion, gay marriage and Playboy?

Um, what? Who said anything about dying for these things? I just don't think that the latter two are anything to make such a big deal out of.

But to answer your question: no, no, and no.

Ash says:

"....he made such ignorant remarks about my wife who never posts here...."

I'll bet the fact that your wife never posts here is one reason you felt so secure in bragging about your "womanizing" (your own term) the other day. I guess a married man who brags about being a "womanizer" is not one I would expect to have much respect for other moral issues, either. And unless your wife goes along with your "womanizing" you are lying to her about your activities. What a guy!!

slaw, people get very emotional and irrational when faced with what seems to them, at the time, insurmountable problems. I do wonder why this loving grandmother felt no compunctions about leaving a rapist free to rape other girls.

I have a friend who thinks of herself as a good Christian who pressured her daughter to get an abortion when the daughter got pregnant out of marriage. The daughter prevailed, and my friend is the most doting, loving, wonderful grandmother imaginable. I have never asked her how she feels about her determination to make sure this child would never be born, but I am sure it is a part of her consciousness every time she looks at him. But she panicked.

The thing is, pregnancy is a temporary problem. It is finite. It always ends, and it doesn't really take all that long, either. Abortion is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. And it is one fraught with emotional side effects. If mature women can be wracked with guilt after having abortions, what do you think the emotional fallout might be to a 14-year-old girl, who was pressured into doing something she didn't understand? She could not get her ears pierced without parental consent. She could not go on a school field trip to a museum without parental consent. She could not try out for cheerleader without parental consent. But you argue that she can give reasoned consent to a procedure which is found unacceptable by the majority of adults? One with such overwhelming emotional fallout such a likelyhood?

I had friends who got pregnant in high school and went away to have their babies and give them up for adoption. Since then I have met many women with this experience in their past. Yes, every one of them thought her world was ending when she found out she was pregnant. And every one of them is happy to know that she had the courage and love to do what was best for her baby. At that time, abortion was not an option. It was not legal. Of all the girls I knew then and after who got pregnant, not one went into the "back alley" of Liberal hyperbole.

Oh, they were all afraid to tell their parents, too. But they all did, and they all made it through the experience as families. And the parental reaction was never as bad as the girls anticipated.

Yes, there will always be girls who are at risk from abusive parents if they admit their pregnancies. But why not address that one issue, instead of creating this huge umbrella which allows any "confidant" to enable any young immature girl to make such a momentous and life-changing decision without the love and protection of her family?

Dan, I think you are overreacting to the post about the likelyhood of a "confidant" taking a minor child across state lines to destroy the evidence of his illegal sexual conduct. You call such a concern "small minded". I have to wonder how anyone could possibly think it small minded to want sexual predators caught,instead of enabling them to hide the results of their illegal actions.

And maf, please try to keep up. We are talking about efforts to legislate a government intrusion into a family decision. It has nothing to do with gays. I think we all pretty much agree that consenting ADULTS can do whatever they want, as long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses. And if a pregnancy results from homosexual activity, I think we should deal with that then. Actually, that would be rather interesting......

I do not agree with abortion and I think the only time they should happen is when the life of the mother is in jeopardy; even then it vexes me to choose one life over another. However, I also believe that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body (she can settle up with the big man later on) and I do not think that anyone can yet prove when life (in terms of soul, cognition, etc.) begins. At this date, that discussion is still theoretical, or theological depending on your disposition.
In fact, you and I live in a modern progressive society that does not share our view that abortion is wrong. What most of you fail to accept is that by choosing to live in a democratic society that enjoys the separation of church and state, you cannot forcibly impose you religious views on the masses, in doing so you chip away at the foundation of this great country, creating a slippery slope for future generations to walk.

Besides, who wants religion in their politics, what would follow something akin to Sharia law?

I do not agree with abortion and I think the only time they should happen is when the life of the mother is in jeopardy; even then it vexes me to choose one life over another. However, I also believe that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body (she can settle up with the big man later on) and I do not think that anyone can yet prove when life (in terms of soul, cognition, etc.) begins. At this date, that discussion is still theoretical, or theological depending on your disposition.
In fact, you and I live in a modern progressive society that does not share our view that abortion is wrong. What most of you fail to accept is that by choosing to live in a democratic society that enjoys the separation of church and state, you cannot forcibly impose you religious views on the masses, in doing so you chip away at the foundation of this great country, creating a slippery slope for future generations to walk.

Besides, who wants religion in their politics, what would follow something akin to Sharia law?

maf,

Then they are entirely trivial matters...an important thing is where if you don't have it, you'd rather be dead.

Rev,

Ah, but that would be to step away from a fanatic defense of abortion in all cases...something our leftwingers seem incapable of doing...

Mark,

Don't profess some sort of moral outrage about my comment, you know just as well as anyone who reads around here that you obviously could care less about personal attacks, even though your thoughtfully written "rules" regarding them have been posted for everyone to read.

I came here for debate and some banter back and forth, some people take this as meaning I am some sort of enemy, and while I could care less, when you take cross the line in attacking someone's family, personally, that is beyond ignorant.

If you want to carp that someone bothered to call you out on the obvious, then boo-frickin'-hoo, ban me for all I care, but the moment that happens, you merely confirm the hypocrisy that is opaquely visible right now.

You may think I am here to be disagreeable, but you ignore the comments I have made regarding the disdain I have for Clinton, and many other Dems, not only the policies of Bush and his gang; If you think I am here to merely get a rise out of someone, then so be it, but your logic is flawed, if for the simple fact that half of this country seems to disagree with your interpretations, I simply happen to be one of them.

peace

maf asked a reasonable question:

"I am still waiting for an answer --- what is so bad about just putting the child up for adoption instead? If you do not want the child that badly, then why not give it to somebody who actually does?"

I don't know why none of the liberals here answered your question. I would assume none of the conservatives answered because this is their position, also, and we'd also like to know the answer to that question. Adoption is the best option in this situtation.

LNC,

It's the best option for YOU, but what about the woman?

Do you ever have to carry a child to term, then give it up, wondering for the rest of your life about that kid? It's a tough choice, no doubt, either way, but that choice is between a woman and her doctor, you have no bearing on it.

Yes Mark. It is hard to believe. You should have heard some of the fam when word got out. But as I stated, in small towns sometimes the family name is the most important thing. Look up the case of my cousin, Joey Smith. (I know, the name alone makes the story seem even more contrived.) smith vs malouf is the case.

"In Smith v Maloof, 722 So.2d 490 (Miss. 1998), the mother and her parents conspired to deprive a father of his parental rights. This case was fought in Mississippi. Ultimately, however, the father’s case was dismissed on a technicality having nothing to do with his efforts to establish a custodial or support relationship with the child." http://www.mslawyer.com/mssc/cases/20020822/0000465.html

And yes Rev. It is possible to not totally agree with something.

As far as reporting the rape... It was date rape. Since she was dating a black person, once again the "family name" prevailed over common sense and decency. Let me add this is the side of the family that I try my hardest to avoid. And I never said the father was abusive. To my knowledge he is just a drunk... which does occasionally lead to abuse. But like I said, the news I get from this side of the family is sparse.

I don't pay the government to tell me how to live; I pay it to keep me safe.

TEO,

If you really think that I write on this blog just to get traffic, then what you are doing is insulting me...what I'm wondering is why you come to a place where you dislike - not just disagree with - the authors?

I go over to Dean's World fairly often even though I disagree with a good deal that is said there - but I don't think they are writing just to get hits: personally, I think they're writing because they believe they have something interesting to say and want to have a discussion about it. Meanwhile, I don't go to blogs where I consider the authors to be simply on a hate-filled mission to make life ever more miserable.

Why be here, unless you have a deep and abiding respect for me and the rest of the people who write and comment?

Mark,

Who said I dislike you? I don't even know you. I disagree with 99% of what you say, but I don't pretend to know you as a person, nor how you treat your friends; So to say that I "dislike" you is merely hyperbole.

I am glad you travel the 'blogosphere' (did I ever tell you how much I dislike that word?) to have discussions, express my views, present my facts, and await the argument, I like the argument, otherwise I wouldn't do it. But when I see childish attack dogs flaunt your rules, then what am I to extrapolate from the circumstance? 1) You condone the personal attacks or 2)you don't care to do anything, but pay lip-service to some semblance of civility because of hit-counts.

I respect you as a human being, and as a well thought-out writer, I don't agree, but I respect you. I don't want to make it seem like i'm here to piss on your rug, and I don't expect anyone to pull any punches, but I draw the line of respect for people whose rebuttals are coupled with attacks on people whom have nothing at all to do with the conversation.

Mark,

From your last post you almost make it sound like you would not want someone here who does not share your views?