You just wonder how often the people at the "Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights" actually, ya know, get down on their knees and beg pardon from the Lord...

2.5 of our brave soldiers have died per day for 4 years in Iraq. 3700 of our unborn children have died per day to abortion for the past 30+ years. Our soldiers chose to serve, the prochoice chose to abort, and the unborn get their brains suctioned?

And the argument is pro-choice? And cut and run in Iraq?

That might well be the best definition of a Moonbat.

Too bad, liberals. Life won for once. Death is a loser.

This is yet another post from the right that just reeks with smugness and contempt.

The author thinks it's clever to call people "jackals" right from the outset of the post and to refer to his fellow Americans as "inbred" if they don't agree with him.

What's REALLY amusing is when one of these pompous posters in the tiny and ever-shrinking minority of right-wing dead-enders accuses the LEFT of being filled with hate.

Seriously -- if you have the time and the stomach for it -- go and read the wing-nuts' posts over the past few months. They sound like they were written by sad, angry men whose sole ability to address differing views is through projecting hatred. The right-wingers typically express that hatred through mediocre and tiresome insults, much like a playground bully might. (In Leo's case, I get the sense that he considers himself a clever wordsmith. In actual fact, however, his attempts to use vocabulary with precision and economy seem forced, over-calculated, boorish, and sophomoric).

I find it really ironic that you conservatives support the health of a non-viable fetus, but not the health of a woman.
At least admit that sometimes an abortion IS MEDICALLY NECESSARY. This is supported by the vast majority of doctors and health officials outside the US gov't. People with an education.

"Potential blood sacrifices" is right, Leo. Anyone who supports the partial birth of a baby whose skull is then impaled and his/her brains sucked out is INHUMAN.

*Chuckles*

But yek, you didn't say a thing about Partial Birth Abortion. I mean do you honestly want it to continue? Or are you just complaining that a right wing commentator has something to be happy about?

Yet another example of people looking for big government to solve society's problems.

A supreme court ruling does nothing to correct society's view on killing an unborn baby.

Only thru nurture, education, setting a good example and love do you change that.

I ask people on this forum how many times have you been married? When people dont respect the sanctity of marriage why will our children respect the sanctity of life?

Mr Noonan... You are in your 40's yet no children of your own? Only step-children? Yet at the same time you decry the declining birth rates as a result of moral bankruptcy and abortion on demand (your words in another thread). Is this your first marriage? Why not adopt?

By setting the example ourselves, we show our children how to lead their lives.

Big government and rulings from the Supreme Court do nothing to address society's problems.

Yekept, if you would employ some reading comprehension skills, you would have understood that liberals are inbred with intractable narcissism; In other words, a trait that they (may I be so bold as to include you in that group) are born with.

And if you think that my deploring the murder of the most innocent of innocents is "hatred", then I stand guilty as charged.

I wish everyone were so "hateful" in such matters.

Big government and rulings from the Supreme Court do nothing to address society's problems.

And inaction and sanction does nothing to protect the lives of innocent babies.

Yet again another post that does nothing to address the act of Partial Birth Abortion. I don't like government butting into things anymore than than the next guy, but we live in a country where the law dictates quite a bit on what we can and can not do.

Before this ruling it was perfectly okay to induce labor, turn the baby around, and kill it before it got out of the mother. No matter if the baby could live outside the mom or not. If this wasn't done there would still be folks who could and would do this whether we "set a good example" or not.

So once again I ask for those who disagree with this ruling. Are you perfectly fine with partial birth abortion? On what grounds?

I find it really ironic that you conservatives support the health of a non-viable fetus, but not the health of a woman. At least admit that sometimes an abortion IS MEDICALLY NECESSARY. This is supported by the vast majority of doctors and health officials outside the US gov't. People with an education.

A baby at that stage can just as easily, no, more easily be delivered live as dead.

If you're looking for excuses to continue this barbaric practice, you're going to have to come up with a better one than that.

But I won't hold my breath.

Funny thing about this abortion nonsense. All along they keep telling us that they must remain legal, affordable and accessible, "for the health of the woman."

Yet, in writing a post on my blog about this, I reread the Roe vs Wade decision handed down in 1973, that led to all this. The very first sentence says, "A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life."

I'm no lawyer, but that appears to me that an abortion to save the mother's life and health was already legal!!!!!

It is obvious to me that the Democrat party's objective isn't protecting the life of the mother, but to continue the slaughter of millions of unborn Americans in their culture of death.

so guys - when in your mind does a fetus become human? conception?

Hey kblack77....when you actually pull a living human fetus from the woman's body merely to kill it...I suggest even a dumb lib like you could look at it and say that is a fellow traveler. However, being a lib and no brains much less moral fiber you would rather off the baby. So don't give us your 'conception' agenda...its neither a dog, nor a cat....what do you think is there? And especially at the last minute of the 9th month....you screaming banshees are ridiculous. I love it that Reid comes out and suggest this wouldn't have happened if O'connor was on the bench....yet he himself voted for the bill since his own political life depended on it. Now he's just like you kblack...a hypocrit and effeminate at the same time.

"so guys - when in your mind does a fetus become human? conception?"

Say what? kblack77 developing a thought process?

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around this quote
"the Supreme Court has undermined a woman's right to choose and to act in accordance with her conscience and the dictates of her faith."

I would really like to know what kind of faith would encourage the killing of a child.

mithglin

I find it really ironic that you conservatives support the health of a non-viable fetus, but not the health of a woman.

I find it really moronic that you buy into the propaganda that implies any of this has to do with the "health of a woman." This is a 30-year-old strawman, a load of tripe, and yet you, an (un)educated liberal, laps it up.

But then again, you do call yourself "fool..."

Mr Noonan... You are in your 40's yet no children of your own? Only step-children? Yet at the same time you decry the declining birth rates as a result of moral bankruptcy and abortion on demand (your words in another thread). Is this your first marriage? Why not adopt?

IT for Wife, this is as moronic as the old "if you've never served" argument. Just when you were starting to show some promise, you once again expose true dumbassery. Are you and Cyberactress related?

many states have passed the same reasonable restriction w/o then carrying forward & gutting further abortion rights.

so much 4 the "slippery slope".

only extremists (left or right) argue their position must be unfettered & w/o restriction.

The whole "health of the mother" argument is a canard, and everyone should know that by now. While Roe is the case which gets the most attention, the companion case (Doe v. Bolton, decided on the same day), said this:

"We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman."

Phrased thusly, we see that "health" is such a broad view that a limitation on abortion, with exceptions for the mother's health, is, in essence, no limitation at all.

Its amazing how libs who cry croc tears for the young men who VOLUNTEERED yet have no problem supporting a law that allows killing thousands of children. The cognitive disconnect is astounding. Kinda like someone else said about the gun issue. They have no problem with the Gov being the only one with guns but god help us don't look at my library records.

For the fools that trot the old tired strawman of womans health....Name just one woman in the last 30 years that has not been able to get whatever procedure was needed to save her life...cmon you can do it....just one.

This is written by a former pro-choice person who once I held my daughters for the first time realized how wrong I had been.

It is obvious beyond belief these "edge cases" - like "partial birth" (a made up term) - are just proxy debates for the larger abortion question. And that debate has been gone over so many times here it's not worth doing again. So... just two points.

One - There are indeed times when abortion is medically necessary, and your denial of the fact is just stubornness. And for all practical purposes, induced labor before viability is defacto abortion, so don't bring up that cop-out.

Two - This procedure, dilation & extraction, is rare. (.2% of abortions). Taking away a doctor's choice of procedure will not lower the number of abortions - All this decision does is give the doctor fewer choices and muddy the waters.

Keefer,
Why do you insist on calling me and others on here names? How old are you?

The reason I asked Mr Noonan about marriage and children is they are intimately related in a Christian society.

The fact that Mr Noonan does not have children of his own does not preclude him from commenting on abortion. You just ASSUMED I was making that link.
I was merely asking him to reflect on his previous statement concerning declining birthrates which tied into this current thread. The questions I asked him are valid in the this debate. He decries falling birthrates and abortions, yet chooses not to have children himself nor adopt.

I personally cannot understand that. Having been married to the same woman for almost 40yrs and witnessing the birth of my 3 children was nothing short of a miracle. I cannot understand why someone would choose not to experience that.

The point of my post is that family values start with MARRIAGE. You cannot have family values without marriage.
So many people disregard the vow they take before God when they marry someone. Times get tough and because we have Divorce On Demand, people run from the issue and go marry someone else.

Until we resolve the extremely high divorce rate in this country, will never solve the abortion issue.

I look at the top candidates of our party and what do I see? Multiple instances of adultery and divorce. What kind of example are we setting for our children when we endorse a presidential candidate that dismisses a marriage when it becomes inconvenient?

Maybe you have never been married and dont understand what I am referring to.

Please act your age and refrain from calling me names. You and others on here consistently distort peoples names in an attempt to disparage them. The last time I encountered that was with my children. They were in elementary school at the time. I haven't experience that since....until I visited this forum.

IT for Life,
You are so correct in your assessment of the name calling on this blog. Keefer, Navy Dad, I hate libs etc - so many of them cannot conduct a respectable and adult discussion without resorting to name calling. It is childish - and I am thinking most of them are very young in age, and if not, they really do need to grow up and be adults. We are such a diverse nation, with many differing opinions. But there is little respect for differing opinions on this blog. With the division in our country at this time, it does seem like we should at least attempt to be respectful regardless of the topic. I know that abortion is a very sensitive subject, but as a woman I do not want to make that decision for another woman. I know that most posters here are anti social services, but maybe, just maybe, if there was a safety net of some kind for those young woman making this ever so serious decision to have an abortion, they would rethink their decision knowing that they would be able to house, feed and cloth the child when it was born. If there is going to be a passionate argument to bring a child to birth, lets have one for taking care of that child after it is born.

Why do you insist on calling me and others on here names? How old are you?

Because you, and others on here, are morons, and I don't like morons. I'm fifty; how old are you, big boy?

I personally cannot understand that. Having been married to the same woman for almost 40yrs and witnessing the birth of my 3 children was nothing short of a miracle. I cannot understand why someone would choose not to experience that.

Because we don't live in a perfect world, grandpa. Maybe you do, and expect everyone to because you do. But sometimes we have to make unpopular choices.

Maybe you have never been married and dont understand what I am referring to.

Wrong, bucko--I've been married thrice, currently for 20 years, and have a full-grown stepdaughter.

Please act your age and refrain from calling me names.

Please refrain from being a moron, and I'll try real hard. But since I enjoy it so much, I can't promise you anything. I'm kind of an arsehole like that...

sunny
You sound like a nice young lady. One that is extremely naive with liberal tendencies and a heart that encourages compassion and love.
But what you don't have, is years of practical experience dealing with those in our political environment that so willfully choose to disrespect our President (calling him "the Chimp" or "the liar") his administration and anyone that chooses to proactively protect this country.

Ya see...sunny, the DemocRAT party believes that if they can convince enough of their loony base to stand up against our efforts to succeed in the GWOT, they can use this failure to advance their political agenda...it's that simple. And if anyone ever tries to convince you otherwise, they're lying thru their teeth.

BTW, you may want to go back and read post from the past before you pass judgement on conservatives.

"Two - This procedure, dilation & extraction, is rare. (.2% of abortions)."

Winnowhead, that works out to 6 or 7 per day. All are nonvolunteers. Would you allow your mother to suction your brain out tomorrow? You know, prochoice? A woman's right! It's in the constitution, correct?

So this procedure is rare at 6 or 7 per day, with non consent. But you libs are cutting and running and standing by our volunteer troops in Iraq where 2.5 die per day?

But there is little respect for differing opinions on this blog.

Ever been to AmericaBlog, sunny? Daily Kos? DemocraticUnderground? Change for America? Orcinus? Talk about little respect for differing opinions, those lefties are ruthless.

I'm 50, btw. Not quite a youngster. Now run along, moronette...

Keefer,

It looks like I hit a sore point with you. Now I understand the name calling.

When you enter into marriage you take a vow before God in church. We happen to take those vows very, very, very seriously. If that makes me and my wife 'morons' I will PROUDLY wear that label. :)

You obviously didnt take the vow(s) you made before God very seriously. Not only did you break your vow to him once, but twice.

Its funny because I have seen you call liberals 'cut & runners' when it comes to Iraq.

Looks like you are quite the cut n runner when it comes to marriage.

When the adults in this country cant hack it when a marriage gets rough, they 'cut n' run' because we have divorce on demand. Yet I dont hear any of my fellow conservatives on here condemning that. Odd.

What kind of example does that set for our children?
And then we expect them to make a responsible decision when it comes to choosing life over abortion?! You don't see the contradiction in that?!

Our marriage hasn't always been easy. But my wife and I both believe when you vow to God to honor your marriage, you better think long and hard to before you break that vow to God. Because we have moral convictions we staid together, had 3 wonderful children and a whole gaggle of grandkids.

Whether or not you or anyone else on here wants to admit it...life without children is empty indeed.

Its interesting you enjoy calling people names so much. Maybe God didnt intend you to have children. You certainly do a poor job of setting a good example for children.

Keefer,
Me asking your age was rhetorical question because most adults do not call people names.

I am not trying to personally attack you over the marriage issue.

But you know how its incomprehensible to you that liberals want to cut 'n run in Iraq because things are tough?

It just as incomprehensible to me that people want to cut 'n run from marriage when things are tough.

Just as liberals will not be able to change your opinion over Iraq, you will never change my opinion about the sanctity marriage.

I challenge you to come up with a scenario that a late term abortion of an otherwise viable fetus is "medically necessary."

Well, whateveryournameis (I'm too lazy to check), you'll see that in the Supreme Court's decision, (even those who were in the majority) they admitted that Congress was, in fact, wrong when they said that a partial birth abortion was never medically necessary. Get it now?

No?

Ok, go talk to some doctors and see what the majority of them think. And don't come back with one or two or even three quotes from a few doctors who are pro-life. See what the majority of them think. If you want a specific scenario, well, there are several types of diseases/defects that can cause a fetus's head to grow to 2-3 times its normal size. That's more than a little problematic for the woman. However, I do NOT support intact dilation and extraction aka partial birth abortion when it is not medically necessary.

Also, your idea of "late term abortion" is factually wrong. Partial birth abortions almost ALWAYS occur during the period from week 13-week 20. A typical pregnancy is 38 weeks. In fact, less than 1% of abortions occur after 20 weeks. That means, that even fewer abortions will occur when the fetus is "viable".

The fetus is not viable at 20 weeks. The only reason is might be able to survive would be because of an insane amount of technology that we genius humans have developed. Doctors use the term "viable" to describe the point at which the fetus can survive on its own, without assistance, outside the womb. That is sometime after 30 weeks. I'm not sure exactly when.

Neither I, nor many of my liberal colleagues, I am sure, support abortion when it is not necessary. Nor do we even support abortion in some cases. We just support the right to be able to choose to have one.

Before you start screaming about my illogic, let me clarify. This means, we might never want to have an abortion ourselves, nor would we want our friends to have one. But, at a certain point, we realize that in some cases, for some people, it is necessary. If you want to scream at me, fine. But if you do, it is only because you have made no attempt to understand my point (although you could be mentally challenged...) and are simply trying to argue over anything.

And how many of you Conservatives adopt babies that would have otherwise been aborted?

I didn't think so. So, you're willing to outlaw abortion, but you're not going to do anything about the problems created by that proposal.

Fact check:

Unwanted babies are generally abused by their parents, if they opt to keep the child.

Fact check:

They are much more likely to become criminals. In Freakonomics, the correlation between abortion rates and crime rates is examined. Go read it. It's fascinating.

Fact check:

Their mothers' (and sometimes fathers') lives are ruined. These people generally fall into extreme poverty, and in some cases, kill the child.

Fact check:

Unwanted babies are much more likely to kill people, and thus take away more lives than were saved when their parent(s) decided to have them.

Fact check:

You Republicans are pro-life, but also pro-war. So it's a slaughter to abort fetuses, but sending them to get killed by enemy troops at age 18 is perfectly fine.

Fact check:

You Republicans want to "give everybody an equal shot at life" (taken from a conservative nutjob I met last summer) and so are against abortion, but then, you don't support gay marriage. Why is this "equal shot at life" so selectively defined? Or are you just hypocrites?

Fact check:

Yes, keefer, I call myself a fool. That way, you don't have to do it.

I am a fool because I actually post on this website.

I am a fool because I do very little to implement my ideas.

I am a fool because I... okay, I can't think of more reasons. What should I post as to get you off my back, keefer? The lefty smartguy?

And I think you like my new personality better than my old ones. That would be GDAYmate. Heh.

I like my name for now.

ThELefTYFoOL

PS- I am in favor of abortion up until week 20. After that, I believe that it is no longer necessary. So for about half the pregnancy, I think people shouldn't have to get abortions.