To those on the pro-life side, abortion is nothing less than legalized genocide,

How can it be genocide when it doesn't single out any particular racial or cultural group?

It is now common knowledge, to both pro-life and pro-choice advocates, that the Roe decision was saturated in poor science.

The Roe decision was not based on science, it was

when 35 years of legalized abortion are considered, it is not surprising to see a slight majority favoring it.

Especially when after 35 years the benefits for society, for mothers and for children are so manifestly clear.

Moralizing legislation is something of an auspicious trend in America, with more Americans supporting a national smoking ban proportional to the amount of states that have enacted such laws.

Are you kidding? Legislating morality is about the worst and most destructive trend we currently face. I'd rather see you fighting against that than against abortion. Does anyone ask the fetuses if they want to grow up in a world where their rights have been taken away so that they can be born into slavery?

Several analysts see definite pro-life trends,

Damn, that's a horrifying thought. But more likely it's wishful thinking.

abortion remains a key, if not the key, to the modern feminist agenda.

Ah, sexist fearmongering. So charming. Perhaps you and Mike Huckabee can force all the women into 'covenant' marriages and keep them barefoot and pregnant.

It is frankly infuriating how little abortion has come into play this election cycle.

I actually find it a refreshing change of pace. There has been remarkably little pandering on pointless and trivial issues like Abortion and Gay Marriage this election and that's a very pleasant change from the last few. It's nice to see candidates actually discussing things that matter instead.

The Republican Party needs, if for nothing else than to preserve its identity, to recognize how much, as the party which chose life and constitutional authority, the pro-life cause means to their ideology.

The 'pro-life cause' has virtually destroyed the Republican party which survived for years on a general indifference to base moralizing. What the party needs to do is purge the religious demagogues who use contrived issues like abortion to drive an agenda of hate and fear. The GOP has suffered under their pernicious influence for too long and it's about time for them to go back to the backwoods hellholes they crawled out of.

Conservatives, on the other hand, see greater principles (such as liberty, religion, and capitalism)

Religion isn't a principle, it's a distraction and a delusion and should be largely irrelevant to government.

governing the population towards mutual benefit.

When it comes to mutual benefit almost nothing benefits the citizenry more than legalized abortion.

real conservatives should not be shy in holding the Republican party accountable.

Real conservatives realize that is is not the place of the government to ram a subjective morality or a religious agenda down the throats of an unwilling public.

A pro-life conservative is a given. Nothing less should be expected.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Meddling in the private affairs of mothers and families and determining how people live their lives and when they must have babies is the ultimate in statist/leftist social engineering.

I can't think of a more important task for the government than to protect her citizenry.

Fetuses are not citizens. They cannot vote or exercise any of the other rights of citizens. They even lack the ability to engage in basic activities which define human existence. The courts have recognized a limited legal status and limited rights for children for hundreds of years, and the same should apply even moreso to fetuses.

Dave

Since you are proclaiming that legal abortion is genocide, which by definition is murder of multiple human beings. I cannot help but ask you this question. I am making a big assumption here, because in my experience the vast majority of "pro-lifers (a term that makes me want to gag) are for the death penalty for murder, do you support women who get an abortion receiving the death penalty? I doubt that you will honestly answer the question, but I will ask it anyway. Oh and if you should decide to answer please be honest.

As I am not a woman, I cannot possibly know what it must be like for some young buck to impregnate a woman, then run off and leave her holding the fetus. Can you?

I also wondered over to your article on same sex marriages. It doesn't strike me as odd that YOU would want a constitutional amendment to prohibit other adults who MAY not have the same sexual orientation as you do to marry. That being said, I suggest that you take a good hard look at the amendments to the Constitution, with the exception of the 18th amendment (outlawing liguor) virtually all others were made to increase freedom and liberty in the land not restrict it. Like I said I am not surprised you advocate this, considering some of the other political opinions I have seen you voice.

I suspect because you seem to have numerous articles written on this subject, perhaps you knocked a girl up, and she didn't want the kid. Just a hunch.

Also I read somewhere that people that seem obsessed with homosexuals, often have latent tendencies themselves. Oh I am straight, and I do not want to watch guys kiss in public (not that I would make a law prohibiting it), I frankly could give a horses ass if they want a paper proclaiming their love, and commitment to each other, that is honored by the State.

I for one wish that there were MORE male homosexuals, as I would find it easier to find available women who want to have sex for no other purpose than ENTERTAINMENT. Snicker

Just my two sense worth there fella

I'd love to hear how some woman in Timbucktoo having an abortion DIRECTLY effects your life.

It doesn't and never will.

All you want is to be powerful by proclaiming what "morality" is, because it's all you've got in a powerless life of yours.

It's none of your damned business what another woman does with her life.

That's between her and her God.

You have no business whatsoever in defining morality.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Sam,

First: This was a very well written article.

Second: I don't agree with any of it.

Dave and I don't agree on much, but we do apparently agree on this issue. When you claim that it's a given that conservatives oppose abortion, you are overstating the facts. I suppose it's true of most "social conservatives." But the term "conservative" has a much broader application when used in the political sense. Economic or fiscal conservatives may or may not be anti-abortion.

It is so condescending and self-righteous to assume that the pro-choice position "inevitably lead[s] to chaos and enslavement." What chaos? What enslavement?

I would think a life brought into this world which is unwanted by a woman who is unable or unwilling to take on the roll of parent has far greater potential for chaos and a sense of enslavement for all involved.

I also think it at best disingenuous of supposed "pro-lifers" to have such compassion and concern for a mass of cells, yet don't give a rats ass for living, breathing human beings. Once a fetus leaves wombworld and slides down the birth canal, all bets are off. You're on your own kiddo!

Your charge regarding supposed "bad science" simply holds no water. What a court decides has little if anything to do with science. In Roe V Wade the courts decided that a woman has the final control of her body as long as she is otherwise considered to be mentally sound. That it is NOT the business of government to enter into that decision.

Certainly, it is a difficult decision for most (though not all) women faced with an unwanted pregnancy for whatever reason. Any woman in that situation is free and should be encouraged to seek, if not guidance, then information, to enable her to make an informed decision. But, in the end, the Supreme Court back in 1973 had the wisdom to understand that the decision must ultimately lie with the woman, not the state. If a woman has the power to give life, she must also be given the option not to.

The belief that the sexual act is to be reserved solely for the purpose of procreation is puritanical nonsense. People "do it" because it is great fun. Giving and getting such intimate pleasure is perhaps the greatest thing we have as human beings. In this day and age very little sexual intercourse has anything to do with making babies. It should not be considered a "guilty" pleasure. Regardless of the circumstances, if a pregnancy occurs as a consequence, it is and should be the woman's, and only the woman's decision whether to see the pregnancy to term. She is effectively, in this instance, god.

Baritone

If Baritone, Pablo and I actually agree on an issue, that's a pretty strong argument that anyone opposing us is really, extra wrong.

Dave

Mental note to self: Conservative used to mean "Fiscal" conservative... you know less government, less spending, less taxes-the Mantra of the Republican Party.

Since that no longer is true, nowadays the religious right has hijacked the term and now Conservative is a term having to do more with religion than politics as it appears that you must be religiously "born again" or at least convincingly act like it in order to be able to call yourself a "conservative"...

Only if we let the scumsuckers get away with it, Jet. We already let them get away with redefining what 'liberal' means. Let's not let them pervert the meaning of 'conservative' too.

dave

Two notes:

1) To the idea that conservatism MUST be inherently pro-choice in order to avoid "meddling" in the private affairs of citizens is only true IF ABORTION IS NOT MURDER. If it is, no serious self-respecting worldview, whatever you call it, can defend it. That and that alone is the issue.

2) Dave, calling critics of the modern feminist movement "sexist" displays the aggressive intolerance fundmaental to the feminist ideology. A look at where modern feminism originated, Europe (documentation of this in the Netherlands has already been accomplished), reveals that feminism inevitably dispenses more hate and bigotry than it proposes to fight. Feminism, at least in the tangible sense of the word, is more about political power and less about the sexes.

Dave's right about abortion, killing fetuses is very convenient. Now if we could only get rid of those damned crippled and the mentally handicapped life'd be even that much easier!

It's convenient but it's not right, especially late in the term. Birth control, then morning after, then early term abortions if necessary.

"I'd love to hear how some woman in Timbucktoo having an abortion DIRECTLY effects your life."

Or a serial killer in the same place? Something never matters until it happens to you. We're all a little past the point of being aborted so we way say 'fuck you, we got ours'.

Abortion is NOT murder.

Now that that's settled we can go on to determine that the termination of a pregnancy is the woman's choice.

While a number of women have dutifully fallen into line behind their male masters and taken up the anti-abortion gauntlet, it's interesting to note how the most vociferous pro-lifers are MEN making their self-righteous pronouncements from pulpits and state legislatures and in Congress. It's the men who screw the women, get their rocks off and walk away who then turn around demanding that the now impregnated women stay the course - but, hey, don't be expecting ME to take any financial hit. Such women are sluts! It's the woman who should have just said no, should have kept her legs crossed. It serves the whore right. It is her penance to bear and raise the little bastard. Men have important things to do.

B-tone

That's a tired argument you make Bariton...the one that says anyone who is opposed to the killing of babies is somehow responsible for the welfare of those babies throught their lives.

If someone were to shoot you neighbor in the head, killing him for no good reason you would probably say that that is wrong and should not be done right Baritone? Does that mean you are responsible for his every need? Or does it just mean that you think takign his life for no good reason is the wrong thing to do?

I just have one question for everyone here: Do you think abortion is the only alternative, or would you rather see adoption take its place if possible? And do you see abortion as a viable option for resolution in cases such as incest and rape?

You are talking about murder. I am talking about terminating a pregnancy. They are NOT the same thing. It matters not if the argument is tired.
So, too, is the argument that an abortion is killing a baby.

If you're an old testament, fire and brimstone godster, how many unborn babies did your god kill in the slaughter at Sodom & Gomorrah, or those he commands be carried out in his vengeance numerous times elsewhere? Oh, wait. I forgot. It's all right if god does it. I mean, after all. He's god for christ's sake. And he loves us all.

B-tone

#7:
Dave,
The scumsuckers NEED the issue of abortion to continue their hijacking of conservatism. Haven't the majority of recent presidencies and congresses been Republican, and the majority of SC Justices appointed by Republicans? Couldn't they could have overturned Roe v. Wade by now, or substantially gutted it, if that were truly their goal?

They want, need and use it, instead, just as it is, as a potent political weapon, to turn not only against "liberals" but even more against conservatives as well, to bring them into the fold.

"Pro-life", indeed!

Sam,

"...American people who, since 1973, have continually been fed bad science, slippery-slope rhetoric and far-left feminism."

Bad science?

"Human beings, born as United States citizens, are being denied their God-given right to life..."

'beings, born' Not only do you claim that fetuses are citizens, but now you claim, think?, that fetuses have already been born. Nobody in their right mind could take you seriously. Not only bad science, on your part, but completely muddled thinking.

Under the cowardly guise of a conservative, you spew nothing but a plain old bigoted reaction.

Les

To refer to a microscopic bundle of cells as "Unborn" is about as rediculous as refering to a used car as "Pre-owned" and just as misleading.

In order to bring power to your otherwise powerless life, you've taken it upon yourself to judge others.

typical

Would you refer to a bag of flour as an "unbaked" cake?

would you refer to a glob of molten plastic as an "unbuilt" car.

Is an egg in a grocery store an "Unborn" chicken?

Is a hand full of sand an "Unborn" microchip?

Jet,

"Is an egg in a grocery store an 'Unborn' chicken?"

That's closer to Sam's conception than the other examples.

Les

I believe that he is right. i understand that well sometimes women don't want thier children. But it's good for us to help those women out and make them to start thinking about adoption. that is another way out. I'm not saying to think "well since I don't want my child I should sell it". I'm not saying that at all, but well there is hospitals that ask you if you want your baby and if you don't then they just put the baby for adoption. We always have to try to tell then that maybe they don't want the baby but there are other women out there that can't have babies and well, they would be happy with thier baby. It's not fair to take the abortion totaly of, because well sometimes its important for someone to abort, but like Obama said we should try to make it less common and adoption more common. It's not fair that many babies dye just because of women not thinking about other options.

To those who seem so excited about rampant abortions, when exactly do you believe life begins?

Is there some magic that occurs down the birth canal (part of some late term abortions) ? What about c-section. What about early delivery or late delivery. Is life determined by an amount of time, an amount of development? Is a 2 week old baby really 'alive'?

I agree with positions like those of Obama, legal yet minimized. I mostly end up arguing the pro-life side online because of the sheer callousness and annoying attitudes of pro-choice types.

Is it that fucking much of a stretch to imagine that someone might consider a fetus with brainwaves, all it's sense, a heartbeat, etc 'alive'?

That doesn't mean a person is evil, or hates women, or is stupid, or defective. They simply disagree on a question that doesn't really have as much a scientific answer as a philosophic one.

When you agree to put your money where your mouth is and to take into your home two "unaborted" children, care for them, nurture them, and send them through college, then I'll agree with you.

Until then you're just another one of those that say "Oh, all right... but not in my back yard."

It's called hypocracy. You'll merrily pass judgement on anyone to make yourself feel high and mighty, but would you participate in the solution you propose and the effects thereof?

Doug,

"To those who seem so excited about rampant abortions, when exactly do you believe life begins?"

Human life? Life has been continuous but can maybe be called human a couple million years ago. Life does not begin at conception, it just takes on a new form.

"Is there some magic that occurs down the birth canal (part of some late term abortions) ? What about c-section. What about early delivery or late delivery. Is life determined by an amount of time, an amount of development? Is a 2 week old baby really 'alive'?"

No, it's always been alive.

"Is it that fucking much of a stretch to imagine that someone might consider a fetus with brainwaves, all it's sense, a heartbeat, etc 'alive'?"

Of course it's alive. This does not mean it is a citizen with rights, or even a person. By definition it is not a baby.

Les

Baritone:

You said:
"Abortion is NOT murder.
Now that that's settled we can go on to determine that the termination of a pregnancy is the woman's choice."

I happen to agree with you, however this issue is not settled as per the author's contention that abortion is genocide. Just because you have an opinion that I too share, does not make the issue settled. This is why I have asked the author to clarify his position. Since he does think that abortion is murder, I want him to respond to my previous post and call for the death penalty, which I am quite sure that he will not do. I did this for one reason, to show the absurdity of his argument, and to discredit his position due to hypocrisy. Not to mention the fact that almost all people that are opposed to legalized abortion are pro death penalty. This one fact never ceases to amaze me.

Sam, I want to disagree with you about the influence of the abortion issue on this election. On the Democratic side, there is no discussion of it, because (as always) all the major candidates are in complete agreement. But on the Republican side, the issue remains strong.

The social conservative vote is the only thing keeping Huckabee in the first tier. Giuliani's pro-choice stand is the only thing keeping him out of the first tier. The other two major candidates aren't particularly trusted by the pro-life voter, which is why neither has been able to emerge as the front-runner.

The pro-life movement carries as much weight as it ever did in the Republican Party. It just hasn't exerted that weight in favor of any particular candidate. And looking at the choices, it's understandable why. So I guess there's your proof of the movement's strength. When it fails to coalesce around a candidate, the entire party fails to coalesce.

Sammy! Nice of you to regurgitate - in true Reader's Digest format - every pro-life article ever written for us!

While I personally find abortion - for the sake of expediency - absolutely abhorrent I came to realize long ago you CANNOT legislate morals. It has NEVER worked, both here in the US and overseas, and it never will.

Better that a spiritual dialog should begin. Better that real Christians should, with words as mild as milk, educate those around them on the sanctity of life and on the purpose of life...

It might be best for these Christians to realize too that - save for Jesus and the money changers - Christ showed by and large COMPASSION, MERCY, KINDNESS, TENDERNESS, UNDERSTANDING toward the ignorant and the selfish. Remember dear Preacher James that women were aborting their children back then too.

The Constitutional mistakes made in Roe v. Wade are more due to an "aborted" appeal to the Ninth Amendment and the concept of individual privacy than anything else.

Marlowe

Marlowe,

I take strong exception to the above comment regarding the ninth amendment, and I will respond more in depth about it soon.

OK Pablo! Look forward to a little "judicial" sparing!

Marlowe

Abortion is murder the day a fetus can survive outside of the womb. I believe 25 weeks is the youngest a premature baby that has ever lived so we have a scientific place to say where life begins. As medical science improves, that date may change. To say "All abortion is murder" denies the simple fact that a fetus is not alive until it can sustain itself. Until that day, it is a growth with the host with a potential for life. You can argue that that potential for life should not be artifically stopped and I cannot argue that with you because that is opinion, but not all abortion is murder.

Jet,

You said,

"In order to bring power to your otherwise powerless life, you've taken it upon yourself to judge others. typical"

My question to you is thus: did you just make a judgment about Sam's judgmental attitude? Is your position not just as bias? You're tolerant as long as the opposing position is "tolerant" of you. What is your definition of tolerance and "being judgmental?"

As for life beginning at conception, I don't find that really hard to believe. Pray, indulge my supposition that a baby in possession of a UNIQUE DNA, heartbeat, and brain patterns are not living beings.

Furthermore, your argument of citizenship is irrelevant. Under the Natural Law and Nature's God conveniently referred to in our Declaration of Independence, the judicial branch for centuries has recognized two types of rights: "Rights of Citizenship" and "Rights of Personhood."

Les said "Of course it's alive" (referring to the baby). What is the definition of personhood, per se? Perhaps the status of "being alive?" Do your legal research. Nearly every provision under the Bill of Rights is a "Right of Personhood," not of citizenship. Most importantly, the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I think abortion denies all three of those.

If you examine my argument, you'll find I'm not campaigning against women's rights, but for them, specifically, perhaps, the right to live.

Brad,

"To say 'All abortion is murder' denies the simple fact that a fetus is not alive until it can sustain itself."

Does that mean if you or I were incapacitated, we'd suddenly lose our right to live, receive treatment, or time to recover?

Is every baby unique, even if it's in the womb?

According to a recent survey, abortion rates are substantially down from the 1970s.

I have no idea as to the legitimacy (no pun intended) of the survey, but at least it is interesting.

As I recall Roe v. Wade, the test articulated by the Supreme Court had to do with viability, and not with when life begins. Over the past three decades, there have been changes in when viability occurs. These changes may, eventually, render Roe v. Wade nugatory.

Adoption is touted as an alternative to abortion, and in some cases it is. I will be more impressed with this alternative when the "pro lifers" make an all out effort to support adoption of infants suffering from HIV, drug addiction, and other horrible things.

In the meantime, I find myself in substantial agreement with Dave Nalle and Baritone. Attempts to legislate morality, when there is no real consensus, don't work very well and should be avoided. If a woman finds it appropriate to have an abortion, that is her business and neither mine nor that of the Government.

Dan

To refer to a microscopic bundle of cells as "Unborn" is about as rediculous as refering to a used car as "Pre-owned" and just as misleading.

I'd like to refer to adopted children as 'pre-owned'.

To those who seem so excited about rampant abortions, when exactly do you believe life begins?

I'd say somewhere around the age of 2.

Dave

Ben,
The word "until" carries a lot of weight in my statement. I said "a fetus is not alive until it can sustain itself." This means that once the "able to sustain itself" requirement was met that the fetus would be considered alive. You and I can sustain ourselves. We may lose that ability, but the "until" has already been met. We are alive prior to that moment and therefore are alive. An embryo is potential life, not life. Is masturbation abortion? Sperm are potential life. Are periods abortion? The eggs are potential life.

Is every baby unique, even if it's in the womb? No. Every baby in the womb is not a baby. It is an embryo or a fetus. It is a collection of cells that could develop into life one day. It is a baby once it is born.

Ben,

"As for life beginning at conception, I don't find that really hard to believe. Pray, indulge my supposition that a baby in possession of a UNIQUE DNA, heartbeat, and brain patterns are not living beings."

Baby? Heartbeat? You gotta be kiddin'. At conception? No way. That goes for brain patterns too. It is alive and it is human but is in no way a baby.

"Les said 'Of course it's alive' (referring to the baby)."

I did not refer to any baby.

"What is the definition of personhood, per se? Perhaps the status of 'being alive?'"

Not all live things are people.

"Do your legal research. Nearly every provision under the Bill of Rights is a 'Right of Personhood,' not of citizenship."

Cheap magician's trick, re-define what a PERSON is then go back to the constitution and say, 'See, the constitution defends persons, they don't have to be citizens.' The same is true of your use of the term 'murder'.

"Most importantly, the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

It is inconceivable that a fetus has any concept of the 'pursuit of happiness' is. The problem is that some project their own consciousnesses on to that of a fetus. This is much more mystical than scientific.

"If you examine my argument, you'll find I'm not campaigning against women's rights, but for them, specifically, perhaps, the right to live."

Nonsense!

Les

'I will be more impressed with this alternative when the "pro lifers" make an all out effort to support adoption of infants suffering from HIV, drug addiction, and other horrible things.'

Pardon me Dan, but who says we don't?

This is where I come in to pat myself on the back for making some progress with my Jewish friends on the lists that I participate in. I recommended to them that they turn the page, as there was nobody to vote for, just a bunch of marmosets wishing they could be big monkeys. They are all equally anti-Israel. Dr. Paul, whose policies might in themselves be less harmful to this country, has too many Nazi friends for my own friends tastes, as well as for mine. So far as I'm concerned, if they support the criminal regime in power, or are anti-Israel up front, then all other issues sink into insignificance. And frankly, for what my money is worth, Jews who do not take an Israel-centered point of view, endanger their souls and their lives.

This is what a former Republican activist wrote, responding to my suggestion:

Quite honestly, I'm thinking of not voting tomorrow. Who is there to vote for on the Republican ticket? Giuliani? He supports Ehud Olmert. Today he gave Olmert a boost just before the Winograd report comes out. McCain? Romney? They both support Bush's vision for a Palestinian state in Israel. McCain has floated Jim Baker's name as a possible pick in his administration. Who is there to vote for on the Republican ticket? I thought about "wasting my vote" on Dr. Alan Keyes but I looked on his web site and there are no specifics about Israel. I e-mailed his campaign and haven't gotten anything back. Why should I vote for another Bush tomorrow? Or worse? If Hussein Obama is the Democratic nominee next November, maybe I will be forced to vote against him. I believe a former Muslim who has sympathies with Muslim jihadists would be a threat to the entire world as president.

When told that Giuliani was pro-choice, he responded this way:

A few years back, before George W. Bush began dividing the land of Israel, abortion would have been a priority for me at the polls. Today Israel is. All things being equal, I will vote for a pro-life candidate over a pro-abortion candidate.

Giuliani has not distinguished himself from Bush. None of the Republican candidates have.

FINALLY, the guy has his priorities straight!! It's little victories like these that make my day....

Marlowe,

Regarding the Roe V Wade, ninth amendment references, I would like to offer the following comments.

To me, aside from the facts of the case, and the decision rendered, what is of even more interest to me are the constitutional issues discussed in the case with reference to various amendments, particularly the ninth. As you are well aware the ninth amendment has rarely been mentioned in the Supreme Court in any of it decisions. I have noted in my article on the ninth, reasons why I feel that it is so vitally important for it be allowed its day in court.

Justice Blackmun writing for the majority had the following things to say regarding the ninth:

"On the merits, the District Court held that the "fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment," and that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were void on their face because they were both unconstitutionally vague and constituted an overbroad infringement of the plaintiffs' Ninth Amendment rights."

"The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); id., at 460 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring)."

And finally:

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy"

Now this was quite interesting, because in my opinion the ninth was used as a side issue, and was mentioned thusly, by referring to the District Court's decision, and as a side note, Griswold v Connecticut. However it was a major victory for the ninth amendment, and here is why.

In Griswold v. Connecticut,In dissent, Justice Black and Justice Stewart made several interesting statements as to their understanding of the ninth amendment. Justice Stewart declared: "Until today no member of this court has ever suggested that the ninth amendment meant anything else" He was referring to the linking of the ninth and tenth amendments together, which for the most part had prevented application of the ninth in any meaningful way. Indeed former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, when asked about the meaning of the ninth at his confirmation hearings, he said that the ninth amendment was an "ink blot" on the constitution and that nobody really knew what it meant. I find this typical reasoning of far right idealogues such as Mr. Bork.

So to my way of thinking Marolowe that fact that the ninth was mentioned in Roe v. Wade gave this little known amendment new life, in the amazingly convoluted world of jurisprudence. As you know most of the protections of the 4th amendments regarding privacy rights are to be found in the penumbras surrounding it.

So for the court so assert itself by referring to the ninth is VERY important in my opinion, since the whole purpose of it, was to allow us to argue for and assert ANY right which we can describe in argument.

I think of equal importance is how the Supreme Court has and continues to ignore and fear the implications of this amendment, due to its logical conclusion; that being that the people are free and the government is limited.


I am curious as to your take on the subject Marlowe.

Pablo

Les,

"Baby? Heartbeat? You gotta be kiddin'. At conception? No way."

My wording was a little vague, and I apologize for that; shortly after conception would be a more scientifically accurate definition, but the DNA resolution stands. You can't 'terminate a pregnancy' under the guise of 'reproductive control' because the unborn child is not an extension of the mother's body. He/she is a separate entity. This is what I am advocating.

"Not all live things are people."
You're right. Not all living things are people, and I don't contend such. However, anything which as the potential to be self-aware, rational, generally what we would refer to as sentient, I would define as a person.

"Cheap magician's trick, re-define what a PERSON is then go back to the constitution and say, 'See, the constitution defends persons, they don't have to be citizens.' The same is true of your use of the term 'murder'."
I'm not following this very well. If you could explain it in greater detail, I would be much obliged if you still contend the point.

"It is inconceivable that a fetus has any concept of the 'pursuit of happiness' is."

One does not have to have a conception of their rights to still be assured of their guarantee. Is a man who is mentally impaired granted less rights because he will never be able to understand those words "and the pursuit of happiness?" The answer is no.

At the very least, abortion stifles the potential for life; I don't think you can contend this, but if so, I would be happy to hear the justification.

What do you view the pro-life position as trying to advocate? Are we liars, lunatics, misinformed, or right? I cannot see another alternative. The Law of Non-Contradiction would lead one of us to be correct with morally opposing views. I, as a Christian, believe that life begins at conception because, as the Bible instructs, 'man was formed in the image of God.' Psalms would tell me I was 'knitted in my mother's womb.'

How is it ever justifiable to destroy a sentient (or potential for sentience, if you will), unique, and arguably, God-created being? Isn't that very ideal what human justice is constructed on?

I wrote a comment an hour or so ago which failed to post after repeated efforts.

A lot has been said here on both sides of the issue. And then Ruvy said - well, I don't know what. I guess basically that the welfare of Israel is the only issue worthy of consideration, and failure to do so will land you in hell. Okay. Gotcha, Ruv.

Some of the arguments above are caught up in semantics. What is life? When does life begin? When does a zygote become a viable human being biologically and/or legally? And bunches of other definitions.

Of course, it is just some of those definitions that lie at the heart of the issue. I'd guess that none of us here are particularly qualified to make those determinations. We have, though, stated our beliefs.

For me, it comes back to what is the purview of the state? Should the state involve itself in the personal decisions of its citizens? Obviously, I say no.

Ann Coulter has said that pro-choicers WANT to kill babies. That is a loathesome assertion, and not true in any sense.

What pro-choicers DO want is the right of a woman to make the ultimate decision about her pregnancy. That decision is not my business, nor is it the state's.

As an atheist, I see the issue from a far different perspective than believers. I believe that pro-lifers are less concerned with the welfare of the unborn as they are with their own access to the pearly gates. Just as with the gay marriage issue, it is fear that god will be pissed if abortions or same sex marriages are allowed to happen, with the consequence that tickets for the paradise express might not get punched. A bit cynical? Perhaps.

For me, otherworldly concerns carry no weight. As far as we know, we humans are at the top of the totem pole. There may be superior beings on other worlds in the universe, but, currently, that is a moot point. We are it! Humans are the top dogs. (haha.) Life and death decisions are ours to make. And of course, we do. Why is it that believers contend that contraception and abortion amounts to "playing god," while execution of criminals, or carrying out war against fellow human beings are not?

The fact is, we are not "playing" god. We, in effect, ARE god.

B-tone

In the same way that a spermatzoa is alive, and egg is alive, a fetus is alive, it is really not viable as a person until conception, or c-section delivery.

So why stop at the fetus? Let's all demand that no more spermatzoas are allowed to be killed needlessly. They are cute and wiggly, have a nice tail on them, and so very much alive. Also we need to protect the eggs too, so all you ladies out there, no more birth control for you! Your eggs are life, and they need government protection.

So fellas, no more onanism, and ladies no more pill for you! In fact we need a constitutional amendment to protect the spermies and eggies!!

Oh and to all you "pro lifers" out there I suggest that you dedicate some of your "benign" beliefs out there towards criminal defendants that have been found guilty of a capital crime, who may be innocent. I know how much you want to protect human life, why not start there? Or are not criminal defendants alive anymore??? I say this with extreme sarcasm because imho most of you "pro lifers" could give a hoot about actual human beings rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Instead what most of the pro-lifers want to do is dictate their usually religious beliefs on others, nothing more.

'I believe that pro-lifers are less concerned with the welfare of the unborn as they are with their own access to the pearly gates.'

'imho most of you "pro lifers" could give a hoot about actual human beings rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'

Wow. You've got to be kidding me. Any other straw men you want to argue with?

Ben,

"What do you view the pro-life position as trying to advocate? Are we liars, lunatics, misinformed, or right? I cannot see another alternative."

I don't think you know what you are trying to advocate. I think most opponents of a woman's right to choose are confused and manipulated by various reactionary forces, church hierarchies, politicians etc. You will not often hear a clear defense of a woman's right to choose within the mass media. It often boils down to a religious argument.

"I, as a Christian, believe that life begins at conception because, as the Bible instructs, 'man was formed in the image of God'. Psalms would tell me I was 'knitted in my mother's womb.'"

How is being formed in the 'image of God' have anything to do with when life begins. The sperm and ovum were both alive, and of course human, before fertilization. Those two haploid cells join and form the diploid zygote. Life is continuous from the separate sperm and ovum, through the conception of the zygote. Life does not begin at conception.

Being 'knitted in the womb' is something I can understand and agree with. Knitting is a PROCESS. A ball of yarn is not a sweater, nor a zygote or fetus a person. Considering the zygote is not even a ball of yarn but just a set of instructions on how to use the resources of its mother-host....

BTW, a mentally retarded man that does not understand his rights, has gone through at least the physical gestation and was born. Society can, and should, protect his rights. It does not abrogate any person's control of her reproductive rights, the right to control her own body.

Les

Pablo...

Excellent comments! Some of this I covered in a post I made nearly a year ago.

The problem with Roe v. Wade w/r to the Ninth Amendment is that it WAS tied to the Fourteenth. On the face of it that seems to make sense. A LOT of civil rights issues were "solved" by the Fourteenth. Certainly Brown v. Board of Education would involve the Fourteenth.

But the Ninth... It scares judges and lawyers. Scares 'em bad. It is a wormhole leading all the way back to Plato and the Platonic concept of Natural Law. The Ninth calls on people, (all of us, not only justices) to be able to IDENTIFY an attribute or a "bundle" of attributes which is ESSENTIAL to the natural, healthy development of a human being.

From Natural Law, Natural Rights devolve. Rights can shift and change over time, with greater or lesser emphasis. But, from a Platonic stance Natural Law doesn't. Natural Law's "concern" is the tendential development of a human being.

In short this was the beginnings of Natural Law in Western society. For judges and lawyers asking them to step off into this realm in order to "identify" a right is frightening. Judges and lawyers are for all intents and purposes engineers. They want to deal with the bits and pieces that are right there in front of them...

The Ninth requires people to look deep into real metaphysics. (And by this I mean Platonic metaphysics, not the CRAP of Hegel and others who wrecked the field of metaphysics even to the present day.)

With the Griswold decision Douglas clumsily used the Ninth. He spoke of the penumbra of "rights" somehow lurking around the entrance of the "cave" that is the Ninth.

From a Platonic vantage point a justice would ask, simply: is a right to PRIVACY essential to the healthy physical, mental and spiritual development of a human being? Specifically, in the instance of Griswold, does a government have the "right" to impose its will as a wedge if you will, between a married couple?

Douglas groped about - afraid to step forward and make such a bold - natural law - claim. He, like all other justices are terrified of the "train" that might follow this newly "discovered" right out into the light of day...

Thus you have Blackmun trying to "find" a right to privacy in the Fourteenth while turning a wary eye toward the Ninth.

The Fourteenth (due to this aversion to go near the Ninth) is a great but much overworked amendment. There is really only so much "substance" in it and I find Blackmun's fumbling about to discover privacy IN it a useless exercise.

And, as we've seen, 35 years later NOTHING has been solved regarding this issue.

Sorry Pablo but I'm in a rush right now so this is all I can give this... Thanks again for the conversation!

Marlowe

Oh god he's quoting the bible. If we lived by the bible, we'd be sacrificing animals, smearing blood on door frames, and have multiple wives. We'd be stoning heratics, experiencing the inquesitions(sic) and living like monks.

Either you accept ALL of the Bible, or none of it.

It's bullshit when the high and mighties pick and choose at a whim which one their going to decide is "moral".

The bible was used to justify slavery too.

I say again HOW DOES IT EFFECT YOU?????
If a woman 100 miles from you has an abortion, how does that DIRECTLY effect your or your family's life?????


Mind your own morals and your own damned business

It is no "strawman" argument. It is a legitimate assertion.

Even without it, though the presumption that some people have regarding their authority to force a woman to birth a child against her will is maddening. People and especially government should stay the hell out of other people's private lives. Again, why are there those who bitch about the government getting into their pockets while they implore them to go into their bedrooms and right up into the womb?

B-tone

YOU ROCK JET

danke

Is it just me? Am I the only one screaming GET TO THE POINT by about the third paragraph of a serman?

Baritone, it's a legitimate assertion that pro-lifers don't care about children once they're born? Or that they only care about the unborn for the purpose of suppressing other people's religious beliefs? [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

YO Baronius,

What is your stand on capital punishment? Some little voice inside my head is telling me you are for it. If so, do you spend anytime trying to protect those that have been falsely convicted of a capital offense. The OTHER voice inside my head is telling me that you don't. My voices are rarely wrong. Grin.

Case closed
Next..........

Any woman should be able to abort whenever she wants to, including partial birth abortions, and she shouldn't have to give any reason; "I want to" should be enough justification.

It's HER body.

The father should have NO say in the matter, even if the couple are legally married.

However, once a baby is born, both parents should have equal legal standing in matters involving the child.

Clav, I agree.

"To refer to a microscopic bundle of cells as "Unborn" is about as rediculous as refering to a used car as "Pre-owned" and just as misleading."

How can you look at a picture of an aborted fetus and call it a ball of cells?

[personal attack deleted]

An unborn fetus, is just that, an unborn fetus. Not a baby.
[Edited] Pablo completes the point. Unborn life is more sacred than the born.

B-tone

Can we have mandatory abortions on all straw men?

Arch,

Before Roe there were abortions. Abortions have been performed throughout recorded history. Before Roe women with means simply traveled to where it was legal. Those without means bore an unwanted child, or resorted to what was termed 'back alley abortions'. These were often performed by unqualified personnel and less than minimally safe conditions. Many thousands of women died or were mutilated.

Have you ever seen a picture of a woman who has bled to death after a botched abortion?

Les

Baritone,

All I said was that Jews (in exile in particular) who do not have an Israel-centric point of view endanger their lives and their souls. The only people commenting that this applies to that I'm aware of are me, Les Slater and Brad Schader. So stop worrying. What I was writing about was how good I felt having gotten a Jewish Republican activist to measure his vote for president by Israel instead of abortion. He is planning to make aliya and come home. That is what all Jews should be doing now. For Jews, that is more important than this bullshit debate.

HAVING SAID ALL THAT, according to Jewish law, abortion is not murder. It is to be avoided at all costs, but if it is necessary to protect the life of the mother from that of the fetus, it is permissible.

HOWEVER, you non-Jews out there are not bound by Jewish law. In a secular state in which non-Catholics reside, and in which Catholics are a minority, I suggest you not use the Catholic standard for what life is and isn't, simply because you do not want the non-Catholics to shovel this standard down your throats.

So, if the issue of getting Jews to come home weren't paramount in my mind, I'd be a "pro-choicer" - with significant restrictions. But, carrying the issue a little further, almost everybody arguing this SO FAR does not have the essential qualification to have a fully informed opinion. No women - as in carriers of babies, and mourners of lost babies - have commented here. SO FAR, nobody arguing an opinion here has a WOMB. That is why I think this is a bullshit debate.

Clavos #52.....absofuckinlootly!

Two things... Ever notice how Sam pontificates and then never shows back up to his own party?

And, nice to see that this has degenerated into name calling and profanity... Come on people, I thought the BC'ers were better than this!

Hell, me and Dave regularly try running one another off the proverbial BC highway but we don't let it sink to this point!

Ruvy, Pablo, B'Tone! Boys! Let's not let this post prove MY post of a few days ago, re: the balkanization of US.

Marlowe, forced to revert to one of his former occupations - bouncer.

"...pontificates and then never shows back up to his own party?" Sweetie that's the very definition of a Republican...

...you silly

Here I go again, interrupting this argument to recommend a movie:

Lake of Fire, an astonishingly good documentary that attempts to take an even-handed look at the abortion issue. It's a very upsetting movie and a brilliant one.

You may read my review here.

Bush's SOU speech was incredible! I was watching Cheney and his lips didn't move once, even when he drank a glass of water!

he's quoting the bible. If we lived by the bible, we'd be sacrificing animals, smearing blood on door frames, and have multiple wives. We'd be stoning heretics, experiencing the inquisitions(sic) and living like monks.

I try hard to live by the Bible - the Torah, Writings and Prophecies. I'm looking forward to animal sacrifices, smearing blood on the doorpost for PessaH. I don't see how I could have multiple wives and live like a monk at the same time - at least one of the those women will want me to satisfy her (my wife ain't reading this, heh heh); I keep Sabbath and follow laws of Kashruth. You got any problem with that, Jet?

The Bible and its laws do not apply to you Jet - nor to all the other non-Jews on the list flapping their gums here. The Catholics have not kicked us out of our spiritual position, and neither have the Protestants (not for lack of trying). WE ARE STILL ISRAEL AND YOU ARE NOT.

What does apply to you all are the Noahide prohibitions not to spill blood or engage in sexual immorality. If you look at the issue from THAT point of view, you get a who different take on what you are dealing with. Both Noahide commandments above have not been fully defined - yet.

(sigh)

sigh echoooooooooooooo

At least he closed his bold tag.

I've seen my babies on ultrasound, kicking and turning somersaults. I listened to their heartbeats before anyone could tell I was pregnant. They were a lot smaller than they are now, but they were always my babies.

I had a stillborn baby. My husband and I buried her, and had the funeral outside. A friend who had had an abortion stood by the grave after everyone had left. "I wish I had a place like this where I could stand, and grieve" is what she said. So, I let her grieve with me. I didn't think she'd ever stop crying, and I'm not really sure she ever will.

Anyone know what the #1 killer of pregnant women is?

Pro-life men on this thread have been accused of forcing women into carrying unwanted pregnancies to term.

I'd be really careful lest that accusation backfire.

Finally!!

A woman speaks up - one, who like my wife, has lost a baby, and who, like my wife, still grieves the loss. Well, I grieve too, but that isn't the point. For a woman, the loss is very personal.

Finally, someone who can truly provide an informed opinion here....

Irene,

I am pro choice. That does not mean pro abortion. It means that the woman should have the choice of whether or not to bear a child. Not the church, not the state, not any relation, including husband, boyfriend or parent. It is her right, either way she chooses.

If she so chooses to abort, she should have access to that medical procedure. If she carries to term, she should have support for that decision, including from the state.

It is society that forces women to stay in unhealthy relationships. Society should provide all the moral and financial support that a woman needs to get out of such a relationship. This includes the relationship with parents that your link brings up.

The advocates of forced motherhood have tried, and succeeded in forcing parental consent. They also, in general, believe the father should be able to force her to bear his child. In all this they appeal to the coercion of the state, in all its invasive and punitive powers.

The link that you provide is the most disingenuous piece of crap that I have seen in a long time. It attempts to deny her choice, based on the fact that others sometimes deny her choice and cause her harm. This is quite sleazy and inhuman.

Les

Nah, Ruvy (#64), you won't be smearing blood on the doorposts for PessaH. That was a one-time, only-in-Mitzrayim mitzvah.

Nasty weather heading our way. Stay warm and dry there -- Ma'aleh Levona's likely to be Ma'aleh Lavan, what with the expected snow!

Hss BC turned into a jewish bible study group?

JOM - "McCain - Just not jewish enough"

All I said was that Jews (in exile in particular) who do not have an Israel-centric point of view endanger their lives and their souls. The only people commenting that this applies to that I'm aware of are me, Les Slater and Brad Schader

Ruvy,
I am not a Jew in exile, I am a Jew born in America. America is my homeland and none of this has anything to do with abortion.

As a woman who has had an abortion and now at middle age not in a position to reproduce, my decision to have or not have a child was the most personal of all choices. And there is no right decision in the case where the child is not wanted or planned for. It's a rock and hard place choice. And it must be made as responsibly and with the clearest head possible at such a time. Religious zealotry is not conducive to this process.

Irene I don't regret not having a place to go to grieve my loss. Considering the potential father of this small life I am grateful to have been able to make the decision I did. I did not fully grasp the depth and breadth of his narcissistic personality until I was much older (he's now married to my sister so you can see that this is a man who has no respect for anyone's boundaries let alone those of his own child).

At the end of the day there are other people who made better parents than me. And I'm all for people doing what they are good at and not being forced into rolls they cannot manage well. My mother had 5 children and this was not, I repeat not something she excelled at.

Medical decisions do not belong in the political arena. In fact the writer of this article might want to find recourse to Jeremy Bentham et.al. to explore what true conservatism entails. I think his education is in need of expansion.

JOM, with a name like McCain (literally meaning 'Son of Cain'), he'll never be good enough...

Pablo - The little voices in my head keep telling me that my medications stopped working.

I don't know if you'd consider my position on capital punishment to be consistent. I support it in only those cases where the prisoner is a likely threat to safety. Someone who kills his spouse in a moment of rage belongs behind bars. Someone who has shown a pattern of violence such that he cannot be trusted around guards or fellow inmates probably has to be killed by the state. But we err on the side of life.

We err on the side of life everywhere. Doctors take every reasonable step to save lives. Soldiers try to avoid civilian deaths. Spam has reduced its soylent green content by 60%.

(My computer keeps freezing up on me. Let me try to finish this message again.)

...Also, people on death row get multiple appeals. We do everything to avoid the possible taking of lives.

And here we have this fetus, who at 8 weeks has a heartbeat and brain waves, and unique human DNA. That meets my test for a human being. Maybe it doesn't meet yours. But can we agree to err on the side of caution, and treat it as human life? That seems consistent to me.

Spam has reduced its soylent green content by 60%.

That was funny. Thanks for the levity Baronius!

In this country we should err on the side of choice(freedom).

We will never agree on when a growing fetus, baby, whatever you want to call it, is human enough to have rights.

The only victim in abortion is the aborted fetus, but can something be a victim if it is not human.

Wanna get all those men in congress in a panic? Declare that sperm is part of the beginning of life and try to get a bill through saying that vasectamy and masterbation is murder

Jet,

Are you copying me? Take a look at post 41.

:) :)

Yo Sam James,

Are you going to come out and play? Or do you prefer lurking in the background and not engaging with the opposition.

Your silence speaks speaks for itself, as in your arguments cannot stand the light of day.

Nope just a coincodence

Pablo... He seems to be only interested in spamming and running. I visited his site. Reminds me of some bizarre version of the Huffington Report. Lot's of froth, slim on content.

Gads, the woods are full of pseudo-intellectuals who've appointed themselves as "experts" on this or that...

SEE! THERE GOES ANOTHER ONE! Christ, they're everywhere!

Marlowe

Marlowe are you talking about me?

BLAM!! BLAM!!

Got him!

I think Clavos just shot off his mouth again?

Primary day in Florida... he's just caught up in the excitement of the moment.

Ah... That explains a lot.,,

I'm almost afraid to ask this, but if the Dems aren't voting in Fla today, whose being shot at?

Pseudo intellectuals. It's always open season on them.

But, everybody's voting today. In Florida, Dems and Reps vote the same day.

What you might have been thinking of is that the Dems' votes are meaningless, since the national party took away all their convention delegates.

And the Reps' votes are only counting on a one of two basis; their party killed half of their delegates.

Then, Clav, assuming you're voting in the Republican primary, I trust you'll only be considering 50% of the issues prior to voting, will only wait in line at the polling station for half the time you normally would, and will only punch your chad halfway through.

;-)

And for godsakes whear a bulletproof vest!

Correct, Doc. Already went.

No more chads; we still have the touchscreens Jet and Pablo are so fond of, so what I did was hit the screen with my second knuckle, instead of the tip, thus using only half a finger.

Actually, disliking standing in line as much as we do, my wife and I vote absentee.

And did you vote for Jo McC, Mi Rom, Mi Huck, Ro Pa or Ru Giul?

Or a wri-i?

:-D

You could have just voted for McCain. According to some folks around here, he's half a Republican.

Doc and Baronius,

I wasn't sure how to cast my vo, so filled out the form, tore it in half, and mailed back one of the halves, figuring I'd let the Elections Department sort it out; assuming of course, that there's someone who can read there.

You could say it was a half-cast vo (in keeping with my half-vast ideas).

Oh crap.

I can just see REMF's comment coming. I can see it.

Sigh...

Jetster... Have I EVER said a mean thing to you? Course I wasn't talking about anyone posting here - everyone is engaged in a healthy, active discourse... No, I meant there are these HORDES (Clavos keep that gun locked and loaded!) of these types here... Lil Sammy seems to be one of them, spewing forth... Probably hoping to get a guest spot on Rush or some such...

Marlowe

Geez, how many elections do you folks have? Now what? After the primaries, then the presidential vote, congress, senate, state government, local government? Even the sheriff's department, too, I'll bet.

Fair dinkum. That's a poll tax - on your time, energy and inclination.

Just do it, I say. Get it over in one go and stop piss.ng about.

STM, the plan is that we'll just keep relentlessly having elections until we get it right.

dave

Time for a new plan then Dave, 'cause it's not working :)

The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and over, and hoping for a different result.

Stan,

It's a seppo thing.

An Aussie just can't understand it.

We LIKE having all these elections.

Forget baseball; Politics is the national pastime.

Not just the sheriff, Stan. These Seppos have elections for just about everyone from the coroner to the county treasurer to the directors of the local water board and (I shouldn't be surprised) the chief librarian.

On top of that, many states including California have countless 'measures' and 'propositions' on the ballot - mini-referendums on issues that are usually so petty and removed from current events that no-one gives a damn about them, and pretty much votes 'no' on principle if they bother to vote on them at all.

I mean, what do they think this is - Athens?

Get it over in one go and stop piss.ng about.

Let me get this straight, Stan: in order to get around Rupert's net filter, you have to blank out the i in ing but not the one in piss??!

He doesn't have to blank either of 'em, Doc. I've seen him use both words in full numerous times.

I think he just lets his fancy decide at the moment he types.

I blank 'em out as STM.

As silver surfer, I'm at home and therefore at liberty to use whatever fu...ng terms I like!

Thanks for the heads up boys. I'm watching in bemused fascination all the goings on over there at the moment.

Seppos, eh? ... the whole lot of youse are mad as two-bob watches.

Doc, you must be walking around at the moment with earplugs and those things you get from QANTAS to put on your eyes so you can get some kip.

STM what time of the day and what day is it there?
This is the USA Midwest EST at 12:11AM on Wednesday morning.

"I mean, what do they think this is - Athens?"

Wwwelll...we do have one of those in just about every state.

A whole shitload of Parises, too.

Nashville, Tennessee has a full scale replica of the Parthenon.

And there's a certain Brit bridge in Arizona.

Lacking old, cool stuff of our own, we're open to adopting...

Jet, it's now 5.15pm Wednesday. We're a day ahead.

Time travel actually does exist. You just need to cross the dateline. Going from West to east (Australia to the US west coast), you gain a day and actually arrive in LA or San Fran on a non-stop flight before you left Sydney, according to time. Flying into the past?

Coming the other way, an entire day disappears and you fly into the future ....

Spooky, eh? Always fly QANTAS or Air NZ on that route, too Jet. They know what they're doing, as they've been doing it since the year dot.

Okay, I plan to buy one of the mothballed Concordes if I ever win the lootery. I don't think I'll ever forgive them for that, though I know why they did it....

sigh

Ruvy,
I am not a Jew in exile, I am a Jew born in America. America is my homeland....

Brad, you're a Jew in exile who is in denial, and who is lying to himself. But, in the end, you'll suffer for this, not I. You have my sympathy.

As for this "having to do with abortion", you're not aborting any fetuses or "pre-born babies" - you are attempting to abort Jewish reality. It won't work.

As for the rest of you:

It is snowing here. Ma'alé Levoná - a Hill of Frankincense - is rapidly becoming Ma'alé Levaná a Hill of White. In this country, snow is news. I'm working on an article forthwith.

Brad, you're a Jew in exile who is in denial, and who is lying to himself. But, in the end, you'll suffer for this, not I. You have my sympathy.

You can keep your sympathy. You are as bad as any other fanatic. In my opinion, you are no different than the Muslims who crash planes or the Christians who join the Klan.

I am an American first. Jewish is my religion and nothing more. It is not the sum total of my identity or my worth and I pity anyone who defines themselves by such narrow terms.

I am not a Jew in exile....

I am an American first. Jewish is my religion and nothing more.

OK, Brad, I'll keep my sympathy. But you started this, and I'm not walking away. Now, I'll tell you who and what you are.

It doesn't mean jack shit to me if you don't like what I say.

At best, you are a "conservative" Jew. You don't keep the Sabbath or care about it. You don't give two shits about your heritage. You wear your "Judaism" like a coat. I used to be the same way, so I know what I'm talking about. Your identity is not a coat you take off or put on. If it is, it is worth nothing. And your "Judaism" is worth nothing. Not to me - to you.

If you keep these views, and insist on them, when it comes time to realize the truth of Judaism, you will be too late.

If you cannot "love the L-rd with all your soul, and all your heart, and all your might," and if your continue to reject the Gift of the Land, you will discover that you yourself have been rejected. And when you finally realize that, all the pleading in the world will not mean anything.

So I warn you, and if you don't want to listen to my warnings, I pity you....

That is all there is to say, Brad.

Actually Ruvy, you started this by calling me out by name. I was not talking to you, about you, or in any way involving you. Maybe you should look at your post #58 and then find where before that I spoke to or about you. I honestly do not care one bit what you think of my being Jewish. You are nothing more than yet another fanatic who thinks they know exactly what G-d wants and places themselves as judge of man.

Ruvy,

As crazy as I know you are, I do for some reason like you.

Brad states, 'Actually Ruvy, you started this by calling me out by name.'

You called me out on that same #58. I have a question for you: Referring to Brad, 'Your identity is not a coat you take off or put on.' How on earth did you ever ascertain that I am Jewish? I NEVER admitted such in any writing on here on BC.

Les

Les,

When you started to argue with me over Israel, your first point was "Israel, by being a Jewish state, is inherently anti-Semitic".

Think about that, Les.

Most people talk about how Arabs are persecuted, or how there should be two states for two peoples, or simply that it is more democratic to have a secular democratic Palestine where Jews and Arabs live together, etc. etc.

But your issue is that Israel is anti-Semitic!

Jews care about anti-Semitism, Les. Whatever your old and moldy Marxist analysis tells you, and I won't argue you those issues here, it is still the Jew who worries about anti-Semitism.

Whatever your other arguments have been, you have always defended Jews and protested anti-Semitism.

So I took a guess. Somewhere, back in your very early youth, a mohel took his tip.

Because Jews worry about anti-Semitism.

Ruvy,

Some very good observations; I can see why I like you.

"Whatever your other arguments have been, you have always defended Jews and protested anti-Semitism."

True, but... I have also protested racism, sexism and homophobia. Does that mean in addition to being Jewish that I am a Black lesbian?

Les

Not necessarily, Les. You could be Asian or Native American, or something...:>)

Clav,

But at least a lesbian, right?

Les

Oh Please No...

Damnit, Les, you've ruined Jet's lunch now...

and my nose is all full of milk... at least I hope it's milk...

Well, look at it this way. If you are a lesbian, a mohel did not take his tip from you. We just don't do that sort of thing. Even a lesbian can get to be a Jewish American Princess, enjoying the best that life can give her, including the best sex....

With thousands of Ethiopian Jews here in Israel, there is no reason that you could not be black. Why not?

Somehow I think you are neither, but that is just my gut talking, not my intellect. The comments editor could possibly provide positive ID on gender and I notice that both he and his assistant are keeping very quiet....

I once had a good friend who is straight walk up to me and say he'd turned gay. I looked at him in shock and he added... "I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body"

Ruvy,

"Somehow I think you are neither..."

I never claimed to be either. I was just pointing to the falacy of your logic.

Les

I never claimed to be either. I was just pointing to the fallacy of your logic.

Uh huh... Did you say you wanted chives with the cream cheese on your bagel or do you want plain cream cheese? And did you say you wanted lox and tomato, or just the cream cheese?

Ruvy,

"When you started to argue with me over Israel, your first point was 'Israel, by being a Jewish state, is inherently anti-Semitic'."

That may have been my first point but I also accused you of using anti-Semitic arguments in support of Israel. That raised a few eyebrows from some others. If I recall you were saying essentially that a real Jew must support the existence of Israel. I responded that you were denying Jews the right to come to other conclusions. 'Birth determines what you must believe.' As applied to Jews, I pointed out that was anti-Semitic.

You are using a similar logic here. 'If you are consistently anti-Semitic, you must be a Jew.' You have little faith in humanity.


Les

I meant consistently opposed to anti-Semitism.

The funny thing is, Ruvy's original comment did address the topic of the article. To wit, the abortion issue and its importance in the election. It just seems like every thread becomes a discussion of Israel or of the British Empire's election system, with some discussion of homosexuality thrown in. I dunno. I'm just in a mood today, I guess.

Thank you for noticing that point, Baronius....

It just seems like every thread becomes a discussion of Israel or of the British Empire's election system, with some discussion of homosexuality thrown in.

We're just trying to balance things out a bit, Baronius. If you'll notice, every actual article is about the soap opera known as the US primary elections...

And Ruvy, speaking as Chris's assistant I can tell you that we don't know anything more about Les than he has chosen to divulge here himself.

Although, judging by his involvement in the ongoing discussion on classic Italian sports cars on one of the other threads, I would hazard a guess that he is very much male...

Baronius,

I have responded to EVERY point on abortion that Sam and others have made. It's run its course, nobody is left defending Sam's reactionary spew.

On the side issues, lighten up.

Les

BC has an assistant slasher - ?

...and it's Dreadful

I can already feel his pain

Oh, it's not that bad in the post-Moonraven era.

Chris has some other commitments and just needed a helping hand. Normal service will continue.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

What happened to mooraven?

Actually, I'm still around defending the reactionary spew. As with the gay marriage debate, one side swarmed and then declared victory based on the number of postings.

And Doc, I love to see articles about England, Australia, Israel, et cetera. We Americans on blogcritics are a pretty interesting group. We enjoy articles about other countries, and enjoy overseas comments about our country. (And the other permutations, too, which I guess is us talking about the US and non-Americans talking about other countries.)

Anyway, like I said, I'm in a mood today. I like this site. The variety of articles - about the primaries in particular - has been amazing.

And Dread is the new acting editor? That must be why part of my comment #50 got axed. It didn't seem like Chris's style. If you noticed, I didn't make any false claims about Baritone's heritage in that original comment; I simply explored some alternate theories of his parentage. (I kid.)

...were I responsible for reading every comment here it would kill me (or at least force me to consider both the vicissitudes of time and fortune that had brought me to such a station and my sanity)

as for mr - her worst hopes and fondest fears were confirmed I guess

Funny. I always figured that "Moonraven" was the creation of some graduate program in conflict management or something. The way she'd respond to polite agreement with fury, it just made no sense. The only reason to act the way she did is to test our reactions. I imagine that our conflict matrices and response times appear on Table 1.4 in some academic journal.

Assistant comments editor, Herr Baron. Chris is still the Big Kahuna around here, so if you get a comment chopped, it will most likely be his handiwork. (As was the case in this instance.)

My main function, being as I am located in a convenient time zone, is to keep the comments tidy while he's asleep over there in Blighty. (Even Christopher Rose has to sleep sometimes!) That way, he doesn't have so much catching up to do when he awakes.

...how do you spell 'brit conspiracy'

It's spelled B-I-T-E M-E.

you leave my sharpened dentures out of this

All right, who told the babysitter she could go home early?

So what, Doc is the new bloody stand-in comments editor is he? Fair dinkum ... why am I not surprised?

Here's my tip ... like all Poms who get a uniform (virtual or otherwise) and a bit of power, he'll come out wielding the big bloody stick and start bossing us around because he can't help himself by virtue of his unfortunate accident of birth.

And of course, it'll be up to us colonials to give it right back to the bastard and put that stick where it really hurts. And to do it with interest.

Doc, I swear ... if you turn into a bloody jobsworth, I'm pulling up stumps and taking me bat and ball home :)

What does it say about the British that when looking for someone to proscribe the limits of free speech they seem to be at the front of the list?

Dave

Blimey,