Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Senator Barbara Boxer Compares Abortion to Viagra

Senator Barbara Boxer Compares Abortion to Viagra

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

“The men who have brought us this [amendment] don’t single out a procedure that is used by a man, or a drug that is used by a man, that involves his reproductive health care, and say they have to get a special rider…There is nothing in this amendment that says if a man some day wants to buy Viagra, for example, that his pharmaceutical coverage cannot cover it, that he has to buy a rider.”

This is the latest drivel in the health care debate brought to the Senate floor by Barbara Boxer this past Monday in response to the Nelson Amendment, a proposal “to ensure that no federal funds are used to pay for abortion.”

After Senator Reid’s ridiculous statement comparing health care reform to slavery, this recent absurdity reminds me of the Jim Carrey movie, Dumb and Dumber. What the heck does Viagra have to do with abortion? How is there any comparison between an erection (or lack thereof) and terminating the life of a fetus? Either Barbara Boxer is on drugs, is showing her ignorance, or worse, she’s demonstrating her lack of sensitivity for the unborn.

Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson noted that the current Senate health care bill does “allow taxpayer dollars, directly and indirectly, to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion.” Nelson led the charge along with nine others Senators, offering an amendment that mirrored the Stupak Amendment language that was passed by the House last month and was to extend the Hyde Amendment, which was passed by Congress in 1976, barring public funds from covering abortion.

Abortion is an extremely contentious topic and even though the goal of the ten Senators was not to take a woman’s “right to choose” away but to make sure taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill, it was rejected yesterday by the Senate with a 54-45 vote. While I’m sure Boxer did some high fives, Majority Leader Harry Reid had a message of his own: “The legislation is about access to health care, not abortion.” Do Boxer and Reid know that an abortion is an elective medical procedure with the goal of ending a life, not health care aimed at caring for and saving lives? When are these progressive Democrats going to get out of their pathetic ideology and off their “we know what is best for America” pedestal for just a few minutes and do what is right? Or at least they can choose proper analogies to make their point.

The silver lining in the dark clouds looming over ObamaCare (if there is one) is that Barbara Boxer and others in Congress are up for re-election in 2010! “Call me Senator” Boxer may be facing off with either Carly Fiorina or Chuck Devore in 2010. While a November Rasmussen poll puts Boxer ahead of both Republican candidates, there is plenty of time to expose her inadequacies.

Senator Boxer’s voting record reflects a left wing political agenda, a partisan approach, and a strong partiality toward unions. Boxer is also considered a career politician who apparently hasn’t done much legislating or communicating with her constituents, although she has plenty of time to write books and attend book signings.

This past summer, Boxer preferred to serve herself rather than conduct town hall meetings to address the concerns about health care reform shared by many California citizens. Who could forget her starring role as Obama’s attack dog condemning concerned citizens — proof that she doesn’t give a damn about us citizens. And more revealing was Boxer’s condescending racial twaddle when she addressed Harry Alford, the President and CEO of the Black Chamber of Commerce.

As I continue to monitor and research the potential Republican candidates who may get in the ring with Boxer, it is clear that whoever gets the job, a knockout would be the best outcome for this political bout. Since this match will affect my state, my hope is that Boxer’s 2005 book, A Time to Run, is prophetic in nature. Wake up California, we need a change — it’s time to run Boxer right out of office. Three terms (18 years) is long enough!

Powered by

About Christine Lakatos

  • http://mizbviewsfromthetower.blogspot.com Jeanne Browne

    It’s very late and I’m very tired as I write this, and in my heart I know it’s entirely pointless — yet I feel compelled to state the obvious: there are/were/are (I’ve lost track of where things stand) a number of provisions in the health care reform bill now under consideration by the Senate that, ONCE AGAIN (as usual) seek to save money, appease the Right, and punish female sexuality by forcing restrictions and/or requirements on women in relation to health care costs and services that would NEVER be imposed on men. When all this brouhaha is completed, we will end up with a reform bill that ignores the practical needs of women, “illegals,” and in many respects, virtually all poor, working-class and middle-class people. We will remain the world’s richest and most advanced industrial nation with the world’s poorest and most ineffectual health care system, because people like Lakatos and others commenting here and elsewhere on BC are more concerned with the unborn than living, breathing, adult women, and, millions of Americans genuinely believe that health care is a privilege and a responsibility rather than a basic human right. I’m so sick of the meanness, stupidity, short-sightedness, judgmental, ungenerous, provincial crap that has pumped up the volume on the health care issue from Day One. In the end, the health care industrial complex will win the day and sick people without money and/or advocates will continue to be mistreated, untreated, and die. Way to go, flag-wavers. You may not be very bright, but you’re undeniably tenacious, strong, and fortified from many quarters. I may feel better in the light of day, but right now, my greatest feeling is: the hell with it. With any luck, there will be enough upheaval and disaster in 2012 to convince the survivors that a new order is in order. Meanwhile, I’m going offline before I shoot the screen…

  • Jordan Richardson

    When are these progressive Democrats going to get out of their pathetic ideology and off their “we know what is best America pedestal” for just a few minutes and do what is Right?

    Fixed that for, you Christine…

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    When are these progressive Democrats going to get out of their pathetic ideology and off their “we know what is best America pedestal” for just a few minutes and do what WE (on the right) KNOW is right–right?

    P.S. Having an erection is an elective condition, last I heard.

    80 billion a year going to kill people in the Afghanistan war and we have zero articles decrying that from those who are obsessed with saving people who do not even exist yet and controlling other people’s bodies.

  • Jordan Richardson

    If there’s anything I’ve learned from writing in the politricks section here, it’s that the small, petty issues get much, much more play than, say, China or Afghanistan or torture. You really want to get people going here, you need to talk about abortion or gay people or a 0.000001% tax increase or the possibility of doing something for others.

    That type of shit really gets people steamed.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Jeanne, it would seem to me that if you’re concerned about women you’d be as outraged as Christine is by the fact that a major medical procedure for women like abortion was dismissively compared to viagra. The comparison is offensive whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, because it minimizes the concerns of women and lowers a pregnancy to the level of importance of a flaccid penis. Boxer’s statement ought to be offending you, but your ideological beliefs about abortion lead you to accept a diminishment of the importance of womens health issues.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Jordan, normally I would agree with you, but I hardly think that abortion is trivial..quite the opposite.

    There are currently 1.3 million abortions performed each year in the United States.

    From the standpoint of how this topic got some attention, that I have to agree with you. Unfortunately, our culture is all screwed up, with priorities way out of wack!

  • Jordan Richardson

    Oh Dave, wonderful work with the spin there. Does it ever get tiring looking for a way to do that with each and every thought that occurs to you? All of what you said would be true were that what Boxer actually said and not your own interpretation of it.

    Christine, I do think that abortion is a petty issue when compared to the other issues I mentioned. I do think it remains a hot button issue for philosophical reasons and that it is an issue that largely centers around the basic idea of when life begins.

    This is a question that currently lacks a concrete answer that will satisfy both sides of the debate. And I’d argue that it will never have a satisfactory answer to both sides of the debate because both sides of the debate have already chosen sides. Funny how that works…

    All we can really base our views on in order to find some consensus is, unfortunately, what the laws say about personhood. When W. brought The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, for instance, it inferred that the fetus could be considered an “unborn victim of a crime.” That differs from state to state, of course, with many states adding a slew of complications to how a person is defined and whether or not a fetus could be a victim.

    Canada has a somewhat different view, though, with the law stating that a fetus becomes a human being only when it is born. From the text: “A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not (a) it has breathed; (b) it has an independent circulation, or (c) the navel string is severed.”

    In light of that:

    I find it hard to wrap my head around people who choose to embrace crippling economic policies and a cruel foreign policy that most certainly impacts those whose existence as humans are in no doubt from a philosophical or legal standpoint.

    An abortion, to me, is a medical procedure that is the providence of a woman and her physician. It is a private matter given the legal definition of a child and my own philosophical views and, as such, arguing about the misunderstanding of a quote from Boxer seems obnoxious and trivial in light of the other larger issues in our world.

    That is, of course, my perspective and you are welcome to your own. I appreciate that you, unlike Dave, don’t go to such great lengths to twist and distort the point of view of those you disagree with.

  • annie for Palin

    How does anyone as stupid a boxer get elected?

  • Baronius

    I don’t know about whether insurance should cover Viagra. Technically, ED is a medical problem, but it doesn’t seem too important. No one ever died from it. Then again, maybe the answer to the conundrum is that there shouldn’t be a national policy on any of this stuff.

  • Miguel Perez

    What a poor argument, is this from people who run our country?
    That’s why our country is like it is.
    Besides I don’t understand how the comfort of a woman who can decide to get pregnant or not can be more important than an unborn life.
    I don’t want to pay to kill a child.
    Viagra is the same as killing an unborn child? COME ON!!!!!!!!!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Say what you will, it’s a gross if not purposeful misunderstanding that Boxer suggested that the abortion procedure is equivalent to the condition of erectile dysfunction and the Viagra remedy. The point of the comparison was merely to highlight the double standard between women and men as regards the choices which are available to them (and sanctioned by law) as regards their sexual practices. The point of the hypothetical argument merely is: if abortion is not be borne by public funding, let’s extend the same restriction to such “drugs” as Viagra.

    Sounds fair to me.

  • doug m

    Annie, being for Palin disqualifies you from understanding your own question.

    Baronius, do you also feel old age is a medical problem because it is more a sympton of that then anything else? When 20-year-olds starting suffering from it, then it’s a problem.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Having an erection is an elective condition, last I heard.

    In a healthy man, most of the time, Cindy, you are correct.

    However, there are certain circumstances in which an erection is most certainly not an elective condition, such as:

    1. Giving an important presentation in a business meeting.
    2. Meeting your girlfriend’s parents for the first time.
    3. Receiving communion.
    4. Making your major league debut on national television.
    5. Meeting the Queen of England.

    These are all circumstances in which an erection is highly undesirable, but inevitable.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Inevitable? That would be a problem.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Dave, abortion isn’t a major medical procedure…

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    lol Dr.D, yes, I quite forgot about those exceptions… ahhhh, sometimes I really appreciate being female. Poor males…no privacy at all. Probably why priests and other religious men wear those robes. ;-)

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    abortion isn’t a major medical procedure…

    Depends when and how it’s done, Chris. Under the worst circumstances, it can be spectacularly major.

  • zingzing

    “Meeting the Queen of England” leads to an “inevitable erection?” fantastic.

    there’s a website out there devoted to showing pictures of men with the unfortunate boner. some of them are quite hilarious.

    what i hate is when you go a formal party and you drunkenly pick up a girl and you’re making out in loose dress pants on a crowded subway at 2 am. quite the public display. talk about a walk of shame.

  • Baronius

    Dread, you left out “7th to 11th grades”.

    Doug, I don’t think anyone’s entitled to sex. If we’re going to take health care seriously, let’s not put Viagra in the same category as Interferon.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    “Meeting the Queen of England” leads to an “inevitable erection?” fantastic.

    Just a consequence of that landmark piece of legislation authored by Sen. Murphy (I-SoD).

    But ye cats, zing. Why would you voluntarily attend a formal party?

    Oh, the aforementioned girl. Never mind.

  • Freedom of Choice

    (1) Has anyone ever died from not receiving Viagra? No.

    (2) Has anyone ever died from NOT receiving an abortion? Yes.

    But who cares about the women, even if it’s the result of rape or incest, or if the child is severely malformed! We must protect what’s really important – our GOP erected officials!

  • Baronius

    FOC, the Nelson and Stupak aroposals have exceptions for rape, incest, and mother’s health. Would you support them?

  • Baronius

    A side note – is El Bicho persona au gratin around here these days? His comments keep disappearing.

  • zingzing

    “But ye cats, zing. Why would you voluntarily attend a formal party?”

    the aforementioned girl was heretofore unbeknownst to me. and it was a halloween party, where everyone had to dress up like republicans to spook ourselves, which sounded like fun. and there was free and plentiful booze. i brought beer, but i drank whiskey!

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Doc D, any medical procedure has the potential to be major in the worst circumstances; I almost died in a dentist’s chair once.

    However, an abortion is not normally a major medical procedure and women have been leaving the premises shortly after undergoing one for decades, so pick some other nit!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Chris, I would submit that any abortion is a pretty major procedure from the point of view of the foetus, whether you consider it to be self-aware or not.

    And in the vast majority of cases the procedure is undeniably traumatic for the woman – emotionally if not physically.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Guess my article was a “stimulant”…lol comments in all kind of directions. Will have to think about a few.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    “When it’s us it’s murder.
    When it’s a chicken it’s an omelet”
    George Carlin

  • Freedom of Choice

    Baronius:

    – Do the amendments also have allowances for girls impregnated under the age of consent (but who were not victims of rape or incest)?
    – And what about pregnant alcoholics and drug addicts?
    – Or pregnant women who are suffering severe mental illness?
    – Or women who are in truly abusive relationships?
    – Or women with serious genetic defects?
    – Or women who are mentally or physically disabled?

  • Baronius

    FOC, I thought your argument was about the life of the mother, which is what I addressed. Personally, I oppose even that exception, but it’s in the amendment. If your primary concern is funding abortions when the mother’s life is in danger, you should be happy with the amendment.

    But you apparently want a lot more exceptions than that. You want free abortions for high school seniors and women who’ve made bad choices. I’d bet that you want free abortions for everyone. If that’s your position, come out and endorse it. Don’t hide 98% of women behind the 2% who have health risks.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Baronius, well put!

    And this moron, Boxer even voted NO on the most diabolic of all…partial birth abortions.
    Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)

    And…
    Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
    Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
    Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)

    They don’t give a damn and they hide behind a bunch of bs justifications…

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Doc, you seem to be in a mood to come up with complete irrelevancies today.

    Neither the POV of the foetus or the degree of the emotional impact on the woman has anything to do with the original remark I was responding to, which was Dave’s comment that it was a major medical procedure, which it isn’t.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Not really sure why my comment got deleted. Maybe because it wasn’t as boring as the comment editors arguing about who knows more about medicine

  • http://mizbviewsfromthetower.blogspot.com Jeanne Browne

    Dave (#5) re your response to my comment (#1) and to the other pro-lifers on this thread in general:

    It stupefies me that I have to clarify this, however…Boxer’s Viagra analogy was not so much about abortion per se as about her rejection of the proposal that women buying private health insurance should be required to buy a separate rider that would cover abortion. What she said was that she does not support specialized coverage/limitations regarding women’s reproductive health and sexual activity any more than she would support such discriminatory coverage were it applied to men. She used Viagra as an example, and the most one can say is that it was a poor example; vasectomy might have been a better one.

    But whether or not Boxer’s argument was or was not the most cogent one possible (no, it was not), her point was that medical coverage of women’s health was being compromised, limited, and imposing a punitive restriction on women purely because it was related to sexual activity and abortion. I chose not to even address Boxer’s remarks in my initial comment, because what she said, correctly/effectively/eloquently or not, is not what’s important.

    What IS important is that Americans who oppose abortion get on their “we’re tax payers and we don’t want you to use our money for THAT” high horse, as if their personal dollars were being singled out of the massive collective pot to pay for an abortion. Please! Although I don’t support the so-called pro-life position, I do respect the idea that some people feel this is morally wrong. To these people I say: IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN ABORTION, THEN DON’T HAVE ONE!

    We all pay taxes, and we all have something we disapprove of when it comes to the use of federal (tax) dollars. I, for example, do not support our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I do not expect “my” tax dollars to be exempt from paying for these wars; that would display a moronic misunderstanding of how federal funds are allocated. The most, the best, I can do, is make sure my political representatives know I oppose these wars, and participate in protests against them.

    Now, to return to the original idiotic notion that started this thread: Christine, who is clearly pro-life, chose to use Boxer’s poorly-thought-out analogy as another opportunity to express her outrage about abortion and her deep concern for the unborn. I am not ashamed to say that I have no concern for the unborn, because they are…NOT BORN, they are not living, autonomous, beings.

    Also, just for the record, as a minister (which I am: an ordained Interfaith Minister of Spiritual Counseling), what I believe is that no soul ever dies. It’s my OPINION that if a fetus is aborted, the soul moves on to another fetus that is eventually BORN. Similarly, it is my belief, my OPINION, that the dead bodies of once-alive people are no more than dead flesh, while their souls, their energy, live on in some form, which is why it doesn’t matter if they’re buried, cremated, or left out in a desert as a buzzard buffet.

    These are MY beliefs, my OPINIONS. I don’t expect others to share them or live by them, nor do I expect government to legislate by them. What I DO expect, as a living citizen of this country, is that the rights, health, welfare, etc. of all LIVE, BORN, SELF-SUFFICIENT HUMANS be respected, provided and protected. Since we as a society have done and still do such an unconscionably poor job of this, worrying about the UNborn strikes me as ridiculous.

    And in the pro-choice/pro-life debate, what Barbara Boxer or anyone else says is totally beside the point. The point is, some of us believe abortion is murder, and others of us believe it is a pregnant woman’s right to do what she chooses with something that is DEVELOPING INTO life but could not yet exist outside her body. While IT is in that state, IT is still technically a part of her body and therefore her right to do what she deems necessary and appropriate for her and her body.

    That is the issue, that is the divide, not tax dollars or insurance riders, or politicians who speak poorly. I do not believe we will ever resolve this issue, because our opinions are diametrically opposed and will always be so. I also know for a fact (because history throughout time confirms this) that women will obtain abortions WHEN THEY NEED AND WANT THEM by any means necessary — whether it’s safe and legal, or deadly and illegal.

    So long as we as a society take the position regarding unwanted pregnancy that “you made your bed, now lie in it,” we will continue to live in a country where women are routinely killed or severely injured by botched abortions, and BORN CHILDREN who are not wanted will be neglected, abused, and even killed.

    Is that clear enough for you?

  • munkirs

    WE DO NOT NEED TO TEAR UP THE ENTIRE INSURANCE SYSTEM FOR: 1. coverage for pre-existing conditions 2. buy accross state lines 3. Tort reform 4. cover those who loose their jobs for a period of time

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    game, set, match: jeanne

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Christine’s article is just about 100% ideological, yet she manages to twist it into a complaint that Barbara Boxer is ideological. Well, yes, you both are. So what?

    The Stupak amendment was spectacularly unnecessary, as has been pointed out repeatedly. The long-standing Hyde Amendment forbidding the use of federal funds was already protected in the bill without it. The amendment puts new restrictions on abortion that don’t currently exist.

    Nelson’s amendment was virtually identical to Stupak’s. Both are conservative Democrats and near-obsessives on the subject of abortion. [Stupak is also unpleasantly anti-gay. And he rooms at the C Street House run by the right-wing religious group The Family — as did John Ensign among others. Rumor has it that he is planning to run for governor, so this high-profile brouhaha is supposed to help. We’ll see.]

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dave, abortion isn’t a major medical procedure…

    Not really the point. The fact is that there’s a difference in significance between taking a blue pill and having a somewhat invasive procedure done to you. Putting aside the risks and how common abortion is, it’s still more significant to the woman and her body than viagra is to a man.

    Dave

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    “When are these progressive Democrats going to get out of their pathetic ideology and off their “we know what is best for America” pedestal for just a few minutes and do what is right?”

    So that what? All you self righteous conservatives can jump up there and spew your own narrow version of “what is best for America?”

    “Or at least they can choose proper analogies to make their point.”

    Yeah, that Boxer bitch has the temerity to make bad analogies. Da noive!

    Jeanne very eloquently and aptly stated the case. While I don’t agree with her belief in the immortality of the soul, I DO heartily agree with her position that life doesn’t begin until birth.

    If we are to accept the righty-tighty notion that life begins – when? – at conception?, why not take the next logical step back? Why not bring charges against women who ovulate and allow one of her precious eggs to dissolve and slip from her loins without conception? Likewise, shouldn’t we imprison every man who has pleasured himself, making love to his fist, allowing all those millions of unfulfilled sperm to perish in a wad of toilet paper tossed into a swirling flush into oblivion?

    And once again, what we have in Congress is a body made up overwhelmingly of men and a few women who have sadly drunk the kool aid creating and voting into law, legislation affecting women.

    I also find it condescending when a man refers to a woman as having made “poor decisions.” Oh yes. It’s always the woman’s fault. What about GUYS who make poor decisions? What about guys whose only concern is getting off? “Fuck em and forget em.” That’s the manly thing to do, no?

    So you have all these studs floating around Congress and various state houses, spreading the wealth of their “vital fluids,” but ultimately walking away and accepting no responsibility for their own actions, and then having the audacity to promote legislation against abortion. What a bunch of fucking, hypocritical creeps.

    Actually though, this article is, IMO, not so much about abortion, as it is about Barbara Boxer. The Reps want her out. It seems that Ms. Boxer has had the temerity to push for left wing, liberal causes; that she works in support of unions. That bitch!

    Hmmm, let’s take a minute. Breathe in – deeply through the nose – then slowly exhale through the mouth. Better?

    If I’m not mistaken, Barbara Boxer was elected to the Senate BECAUSE she is a left winger, and BECAUSE she supports and is supported by unions. You all act as if she was doing something wholly unexpected. They are her constituents. Conservatives do NOT have sole claim to running this country. There are, believe it or not, two sides to the damn coin. Your collective dismissal of and disrespect for Democrats and the liberal left in general is absolutely despicable. Do us all and yourselves a big favor and remember that not a damn one of you can walk on water.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dave (#5) re your response to my comment (#1) and to the other pro-lifers on this thread in general:

    Jeanne, you seem to have mistaken me for a pro-lifer. Let me clarify. I’m 100% pro-death. I’m all for killing fetuses, criminals, terrorists and the occasional televangelist – assuming the proper legal protocols are followed.

    But the facts remain the facts, and equating abortion with viagra is demeaning to women and their issues. It’s like saying that a pregnancy is no more important than erectile disfunction, and that seems both incorrect and rather sexist.

    her point was that medical coverage of women’s health was being compromised, limited, and imposing a punitive restriction on women purely because it was related to sexual activity and abortion.

    Then maybe the comparison is exactly right because neither abortion nor viagra are generally necessary for the health of the person, pregnancy being a perfectly healthy condition under normal circumstances, and therefore neither should be covered by medical insurance.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    dave, nobody EQUATED abortion and viagra. they compared them. my foot is comparable to your head in many ways, but nobody’s equating the two. and the point is that it IS “demeaning to women and thier issues.” who do you think she’s trying to protect?

  • zingzing

    christine: “And this moron, Boxer even voted NO on the most diabolic of all…partial birth abortions.
    Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)”

    christine, just for a moment, try to imagine the type of person who would have a partial birth abortion. right. i guess you’re imagining the type of person who loves to have sex a lot, carry around a baby for 7 or 8 months, get all preggo-chubby, throw up a lot, create strange-tasting milk, and crush the skulls of helpless children just for the hell of it. dime a dozen, eh?

    now think of the doctors who would agree to perform this operation. they must love taking time out of their day to yank live babies out of women and squeeze ‘em til the eyes pop out. right? gives them such a fuckin’ thrill.

    now, let’s try to imagine some of the reasons such a procedure might exist. you’ve thought about that before, correct?

    and you’ve looked up the bill to see what ridiculous language was in it, correct?

    and you’ve considered the fact that politicians like to bring up issues like this, call them graphic, horrible things, then push a bill through knowing that voting against it becomes a grievous sin in the eyes of people who just don’t understand what goes on in washington, yeah?

    “partial birth abortion” is a purely political issue that bans a rare, but medically useful procedure for women. that said, the term is not medical, but comes from the office of one tom delay. “partial birth abortion” doesn’t involve being born in any portion.

    now, a woman can still have a so-called “partial-birth abortion,” if her life is in danger. nevermind if the mother is healthy, and maybe the baby is alive, but it’s brain hasn’t developed and never will. or that the only other way to get a brain-dead baby out is to cut open the womb or chop up the baby inside the mother. nevermind that.

    you’ve bought into this shit, but you don’t even know what you’ve done. the ramifications are brutal to women and to unborn children.

    talk about diabolical. the devil, or tom delay, made you do it. it’s political hocus-pocus, just stage 1 of old white men telling you what to do with your vagina. lovely, eh?

  • zingzing

    oh, and you know what they do now? because this ban went through, and yet there are STILL times when doctors feel that a “partial birth abortion” is medically necessary (silly doctors… i mean “SICK SICK MURDERERS!!!”), you know what they do?

    they stick the fetus with a needle loaded with lethal drugs. then they perform the procedure after it is dead. so that it is not killed during the procedure. yay! what good you’ve done. fucking great.

  • Arch Conservative

    “Has anyone ever died from NOT receiving an abortion? Yes”

    Gee with a name like “freedom of choice,” who would’ve expected reason?

    A. It’s not a choice, it’s a baby. I dare you to look at pictures of the result of an abortion and tell me otherwise.

    B. Women don’t die from “not having an abortion.” It’s 2010 not 1700. The amount of cases where an abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life is virtually nil. Why is it that every pro abort wants to paint it the issue as a life or death choice for every pregnant women. That’s ludicrous.

    3. As someone who is prolife I don’t see how others who are pro-life (I’m looking in your direction Catholics) can be against birth control but then turn around
    bitch that there are too many abortions. It seems a wee bit hypocritical to me. I was raised catholic myself but long ago turned in my crucifix and Holster.

  • zingzing

    archie, if you can’t see how a woman who dies in childbirth could have lived if she had had an abortion, no one needs to give you any reason. it’s just pure ignorance, or political posturing, on your part.

    besides the question was “Has anyone ever died from NOT receiving an abortion?” so obviously, that answer is “yes.”

    “The amount of cases where an abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life is virtually nil.”

    take away “virtually” and you would have a point. take away “virtually” and this would be a different argument. there are several other valid reasons beyond the life/death of the mother to consider as well. it’s sad that by protecting these valid reasons, a lot of invalid reasons get catered to, but that’s the reality of the situation. the valid reasons CANNOT be denied, and the invalid reasons are protected by a whole bunch of other valid reasoning (such as the right to privacy, etc, etc) that cannot be denied either.

  • mary speak out

    I think it is time for all men that are for restrictings a woman’s right of choice to put their testicals where their mouth is an select to be castrated. That will cut down a lot of the unwanted pregnancies created by the filandering rightwingers that flaunt their filandering, lie and still think they have a right to hold politcal office. It will also cut the population of rightwing radical idiots. You go Jeanne Brown you make the others look like the idiots they are!

  • Baronius

    Wrong, Handy. The Hyde Amendment covers only those federal dollars which fund Medicaid. It doesn’t prevent all federal money from being spent on abortion, as is evidenced by the longstanding argument over abortions on US military facilities.

  • Baronius

    Studies show that about 2% of abortions in the US are done to protect the health of the mother. “Health” is a pretty broad term. We’ve seen that from the Roe decision to now, health has come to include stress, something that every mother experiences. And these numbers are typically self-reported, so a woman is probably tempted to check off the box next to “health concerns” rather than “inconvenience”.

    But let’s suppose that 2% of all abortions are medically necessary to save the mother’s life. That’s 25,000 per year. The remaining 1,225,000 abortions are not medically necessary. If Zing wants to take partial-birth abortions off the table because they’re a rarity, let’s just talk about the 1,225,000 annual abortions of convenience.

  • zingzing

    well, there’s also rape, incest, teenage pregnancy and unhealthy (physical defects, etc) babies to contend with… these aren’t trivial matters, no matter what moral code you want to place on them.

  • Baronius

    “I also find it condescending when a man refers to a woman as having made “poor decisions.” Oh yes. It’s always the woman’s fault. What about GUYS who make poor decisions? What about guys whose only concern is getting off? “Fuck em and forget em.” That’s the manly thing to do, no?”

    Baritone, I brought up the notion of poor decisions to refer to the broad range of exceptions that FOC was looking to permit. Things like drugs and abusive relationships. I’ve worked with a couple of crisis pregnancy centers that see this all the time. If you really care about the woman, not just the woman’s right to an abortion, you get her treatment and counseling and a place to stay and federal aid and daipers and career training. You don’t just surgically treat the “symptom”.

    The whole pro-choice culture is based on “fuck em and forget em”. That’s really what Jeanne is talking about. I understand that the man can get off scot-free in a pro-life scenario, but you fix it by teaching men consequences, not by eliminating consequences for women. Never mind producing children; which scenario do you think produces adults?

  • zingzing

    “The whole pro-choice culture is based on “fuck em and forget em””

    horseshit. it’s based on reality. a world without abortion is a naive dream. there will be abortion. making it illegal or severely limiting it will only make it far, far more deadly, to both the mother and the child.

  • zingzing

    baronius, if you actually believe what you said up there, you have no idea what you’re up against. better get your head on straight.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Senator Barbara Boxer and her politics of the vagina are yet another facet in what continues the divisiveness that continues in Washington. Abortion is an elective medical procedure, on that I agree. However, there are circumstances where abortion may be the only alternative for a woman. I think all sides may agree on that specific point. I don’t like abortion but my reasons for not liking it do not include this idea that abortion is tantamount to murder. I am not a scientist or theologian — so my opinion really has no merit in the discussion. I do believe, with every fiber of my being, that the decision is between a woman, her doctor and her God. Now back to Barbara Boxer…

    How this woman gets elected to office is beyond me. She uses her uterus as her personal political football and will stop at nothing to crush her opposition by vaginizing the political debate. If you’re a Californian up against Senator Boxer — you’re automatically sexist. We’re going through the same problem in Massachusetts with the Democrat nominee to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. She won the primary gathering about 311,000 votes out of a registered electorate of 4+ million. That’s not a mandate — not even close. The problem is political machinery, funded by special interests, railroad candidates into office because American voters are just too damned lazy to execute a singular civic duty.

    Is Barbara Boxer the best person to represent California? I think not. The bottom line is that the caliber of politicians we send to Washington is pitiful. Until voters come out from their homes and start getting actively involved in the process by voting we’ll continue to send the same bottom dwellers to Congress every election cycle. And when it all comes crashing down, we’ll whine and bellyache but we only have ourselves to blame.

  • Baronius

    Zing, could you clarify?

  • zingzing

    it’s in #51, baronius.

  • zingzing

    off topic, sort of, but ucla says stem cells can kill hiv.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Not to be inflammatory but I honestly wonder if those who were aborted aren’t somehow better off? They were not born into a world unwanted. In a great majority of cases, they were not born into circumstances that would have damned them upon the drawing of their first breath. It’s a tough issue, no doubt about it. Regardless of where one comes in the debate, there seems to be one thing ingredient and that is that of the woman making the decision.

    Let me ask a question to those on the right. If there were a genetic test which determined the sexuality of the fetus, would you support the abortion of a gay fetus? Champions of the right like Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and John Ensign (R-NV) continue to financially support evangelists and politicians in Uganda who are promoting a law which makes homosexuality punishable by death. Conservatives can’t have it both ways. And it’s high time that those in the middle rise up and demand some political sanity in this nation.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Silas, I heard of the story in Uganda. Rachel Maddow has been following it very closely. What a bunch of damn fools. As a Christian it is embarrassing and alarming that anyone would propose or support such crap as a “law which makes homosexuality punishable by death”.

  • Irene Wagner

    Zing ON ETHICS:
    Zing helps his teenage girlfriend place their two-day old daughter in a dumpster: he is going to be booked for murder.

    Zing opens fire in a special ed classroom where children with multiple disabilities are being taught. The subject matter ranges from sorting colors to algebra: he is going to be booked for murder.

    Zing, feeling that children of rapists should be punished for the crimes of their fathers, kills a ten-year old who is the child of a rapist. He is going to be booked for murder.

    You’re being booked for murder, Zing, YOUR moral code notwithstanding.

    If the perp had been the victim’s mother and not Zing, her decision to kill might have been after discussions with her doctor and her God: She’s still going to be booked for murder.

    Zing, on MEDICINE:
    Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, said, “There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life of the mother.”[8]

    ZING on ALL PROLIFERS ARE THE SAME:
    I’m not a right wing male hypocritical “filandering” [sic] politician, I’m not even a Republican, nor am I the sort of woman you described in theignorant and vulgar accusations in comment #42.

    How very ironic, to be arguing for a woman’s right to anything, and to have made that kind of remark! Only the women who agree with you deserve respect, is that it? (That was a rhetorical question; I hate arguing about abortion. See ya!)

  • Irene Wagner

    Christine, readers of your article about human rights might also be interested in signing petition and calling their congressmen on behalf of human rights lawyer Gao ZhishengGao Zhisheng, who was abducted by the Chinese government last February, has not been seen since, and is being tortured in China, as he was the last two times he was kidnapped.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    The situation in Uganda is just the tip of the iceberg in Africa. Several African countries already have such laws on the books or are on the road to emulating Uganda. It should be noted that many African countries are not exactly bastians of progressive thought. Some are even more backwards than the US. I know, it’s hard to believe.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    As to Boxer, I know it’s maddening to all you cons & Reps that she is able to stay in the Senate. Unfortunately for you, majority rules in this case. Find an opponent who can outdistance her at the polls. Unless and until that happens, suck it up.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Irene: wow, another travesty…will have to check it out.

    Well, B then we should encourage them (the African countries) to take those types of laws off the books, don’t you think? As far as Boxer, CA is predominately a blue state, so we may have to, but there is always hope!

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    And we are learning that the root to the “backwardsness” in Africa is the Christian Evangelical Movement — funded by Americans. Right now the African continent is being prepared for entry on the global economic stage. And this economic conquest is led by economic adversaries the United States and China.

    Fifty years from now Africans will be shopping at WalMarts stocked with Chinese manufactured goods. Whites will maintain control of diamond and gold mining. On Sundays the Africans will file like lemmings into their local Christian Evangelical house of worship where they will drink the KoolAid or is it sand? And, in the meantime, Barbara Boxer will continue to serve in the Senate by virtue of her plumbing.

    Note to Her Majesty — Please for the love of God, Ma’am, take the Colonies back!

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Irene,

    It’s not murder in the eyes of those who contend that life doesn’t begin until birth.
    If a pregnancy goes to term and a life emerges, then all bets are off. You are now dealing with a human being.

    Unless and until a fetus is brought from the womb and drawing breath, it is not a living human being. Canada has it right.

    I have seen photos of aborted fetuses. No, it’s not pretty, but neither is a cancerous tumor. An unwanted child is likely to live a very precarious and perhaps violent existence. Having a parent or parents who resent the very presence of a child does not bode well for its future. Society is largely unwilling and ill equipped to deal with such children.

    Few of the most vocal pro-lifers are ready or willing to step forward to provide care for such children. Foster care is, in many cases, a horror story. It’s not like there’s a shortage of people. Abortion is a pragmatic and viable choice for many.

    If god doesn’t like abortion, let himherit do what’s necessary to prevent it. Until such time as that happens, choosing abortion is no one’s business but the woman’s and her doctor, or anyone else with whom the woman chooses to confer. It certainly is not the business of any legislative body.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Silas, Boxer doesn’t like to be called Ma’am…didn’t you know that? Check out her chastisement of General Michael Walsh when he did that. Posted in my article “Call me Senator” Boxer.

    Hopefully, Boxer will continue to insert her foot in her mouth and Californians will see the light.

  • zingzing

    irene, i didn’t make any comments close to what you suggest above. and your little rhetorical device of having me dump babies, shoot up classrooms and killing ten-year-olds is ridiculous. offensive, in fact. you need to stop being so hateful.

    “How very ironic, to be arguing for a woman’s right to anything, and to have made that kind of remark!”

    which one? i’m not quite sure what you’re even talking about. you make no sense, nor that you’re even trying to…

    “Only the women who agree with you deserve respect, is that it?”

    how you come to that conclusion is beyond me. you certainly have no right to claim anything of the sort. i think it’s abundantly clear that i do respect women.

    “There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life of the mother.”

    first of all, “partial-birth abortion” is a misnomer. and you’ll find plenty of doctors that regretfully acknowledge that there are situations in which the so-called “partial birth abortion” is, in fact, the best option to preserve the health of the mother. and “preserving the life of the mother” is not the only reason why people have this procedure… as you’ll note, of course, was one of my points you decided to skip.

    here’s a list of reasons why this procedure might have to take place:

    “Medical conditions and indications may develop after the first trimester (12 weeks) of pregnancy that could threaten the mother’s life and/or health. Late-occurring medical conditions can include:

    — Heart failure
    — Severe or uncontrollable diabetes
    — Serious renal disease
    — Uncontrollable hypertension (high blood pressure)
    — Severe depression

    Medical conditions of the fetus may become known or could develop after the first trimester of pregnancy, such as severe deformities and genetic disorders, which may cause the woman to seek an abortion.”

    you seem to think that i take some glee in abortion. of course, that’s frightfully stupid. and deeply ignorant. i don’t like the idea of partial birth abortion any more than anyone else, but i’m forced by reality and reason to know that it’s something that unfortunately is a best option in a number of very rare circumstances. it may be disgusting, but grow up and face the facts–sometimes, it’s an ugly world.

    (and read #43.)

    “I’m not a right wing male hypocritical “filandering” [sic] politician…”

    i dunno why you decided to quote me on that… i didn’t write it (it was “mary speaks out” in #46). you sure you directed your nastiness in the right direction? i certainly wasn’t talking to you in #42. i was talking to christine, who seems to think that partial birth abortion is “diabolical” and not just a trumped up politicization of the issue.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Unfortunately for you, majority rules in this case. Find an opponent who can outdistance her at the polls. Unless and until that happens, suck it up.

    No, unfortunately majority does not rule because the majority doesn’t even make it to the voting booth on elections when they COUNT. Think about Presidential elections. How is it that Iowans and New Hampshirites virtually control the starting gate in the Presidential election cycle? Perhaps we need a National Primary Day with a General Election 40 days later. Why do we spend almost two years deliberating over potential Presidential candidates? If we don’t get gratification within 60 seconds of titillation, we usually whine and crawl away like spoiled babies. Yet, we allow this arduous process to continue.

    The only thing the extreme sides get correct is rallying their respective troops to go vote. Those who only vote in the general Presidential elections and forget the remainder are the problem. I worked my tail off this week here in Massachusetts for the special election primary and why bother? Not even 25% of voters showed up. The majority of Democrats who actually gave a damn to vote lamented Hillary’s loss. The sentiment was that a Hillary Presidency would have resulted in RESULTS within the first year. We’ve got some serious issues with regard to our election process that deserve serious scrutiny leading into the 2010 cycle. We need comprehensive campaign finance reform. And we need term limits. It’s up to Californians to realize that they don’t need Barbara Boxer.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    off topic, sort of, but ucla says stem cells can kill hiv.

    Oh great, zing. You just gave fuel to the Christiban fire. Save a fag, kill a baby. I can see the placards now.

  • Baronius

    Zing, it looks like you got that quote from about.com. That page also notes that the AMA has said that “partial-birth” abortion is never medically necessary.

  • zingzing

    actually, baronius, according to the page, the us conference of catholic bishops that said that the ama said that.

    actually, what the ama did say goes as follows: “According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion.” Intact D&X, or dilation and extraction, is the medical term used by the AMA to describe the late-term abortion procedure.

    The AMA recommends against intact dilation and extraction, unless alternative procedures pose a greater risk to the woman.

    One alternative procedure is called “labor induction,” in which a solution is injected into the amniotic fluid, ending the life of the fetus and inducing labor.

    Other options include surgical removal of the fetus, and surgical removal of the uterus and fetus. The latter two methods are rarely used due to the significant medical risks they pose to the woman.

    The AMA report goes on to say, “The physician must, however, retain the discretion” to decide what procedure is used. The AMA says in some rare cases, intact dilation and extraction is the safest method of late-term abortion.

    The AMA report also recommends that “abortion not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life.””

    so yes, there is no one situation in which partial birth abortion is the ONLY method available. but it is the BEST and MOST SAFE option out there.

    the ama has also stated that it would support no bill concerning partial birth abortion without “the bill [allowing] a legitimate exception where the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the physician’s judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother.”

    that’s their actual words from a letter they sent to mr. santorum back in 1997. obviously, they do believe that, in special circumstances, it is the best way to protect the life of the mother.

    catholics… always finding new ways to mince words.

  • zingzing

    kind of an incomplete thought: “but it is the BEST and MOST SAFE option out there in some cases.” just to make sure no one goes off on a tangent.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I’m pretty much with Silas on the abortion debate. I think it’s wrong to take a human life, but since the particular human life under discussion is, for nine months, entirely dependent on another human life, I also think that it’s none of my business.

    What I find truly offensive about this discussion is what Baritone has already commented strongly on: Christine’s (rhetorical) question: “When are these progressive Democrats going to get out of their pathetic ideology and off their “we know what is best for America” pedestal for just a few minutes and do what is right?”

    Why the hell should, or would, a progressive Democrat abandon her principles and her entire political position and become a Republican? That’s basically what Christine is suggesting – that Boxer is not entitled to express any views unless they happen to agree with hers.

    How would Christine feel if I told her to shut up and agree with Boxer’s positions?

    Last time I checked, there was still room for dissent in this country.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Silas, HIV is not a gay disease. But I’m sure you knew that. And if some of these so-called Christians and politicians are going to suggest we put to death homosexuals, they better add themselves to that list, because back in the day, you were “stoned to death” for adultery—commonplace today in many Christian and political circles.

    Dr. D: the key words in my statement are “just a few minutes”. I thinks both sides have much to offer, left and right. And even agree with your side on certain issues.

    But sometimes we need to look at a situation from a different perspective and not always from the prism of our ideology. Besides the absurdity of her comparison, Boxer, in this particular case and many of her pro-life cohorts are so stuck that they fail to see that us pro-lifer’s don’t want to pay for their abortions. What is so wrong with that?

    And you can tell me to shut up, I get that a lot from my teenage daughter these days.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Boxer, in this particular case and many of her pro-life cohorts are so stuck that they fail to see that us pro-lifer’s don’t want to pay for their abortions. What is so wrong with that?

    First of all, how do you know that she fails to see that? Just because she sees things differently doesn’t mean she’s unaware of the opposing argument.

    Secondly, I don’t particularly want to pay for Bush’s and Obama’s wars, either. Or for incompetently-run banks to get free rescue packages. Or so that Senator Schmuck can have a new limo.

    What right-wingers don’t seem to be able to grasp is that such is the nature of taxation in a democracy. Every government, no matter what its stripe, has its own agenda to pursue and it’s going to pursue it using tax revenues. Nobody is going to like all of what the government decides to spend the money on, but they (usually) have a mandate from the majority of those who bothered to vote and if you happened to vote the other way, well, you just have to defer to that until another opportunity comes around to change the government – otherwise nothing would ever get done.

    By all means use your voice to attempt to change minds – but telling people to shut up isn’t known to be an effective way of doing that.

    And teenagers, in my experience, aren’t the most accomplished of debaters and logicians.

  • Baronius

    Handy, I’m not trying to mince words, but it looks like the AMA is, or at least trying to give maximum cover to doctors. They find no scientific evidence that “partial-birth” abortion is ever the only appropriate technique, but they want to leave the decision up to the physician. I can understand why they want to do so. It’s their business to protect doctors, and they don’t want to rule out the possibility of new evidence.

    But they don’t say that the procedure is ever the best or most safe, at least nowhere I can find. That’s you saying it. I mean, what is an “appropriate” technique? I’d assume that any unsafe or bad technique isn’t appropriate. Doesn’t that make sense?

  • zingzing

    the ama is trying to protect doctors. the ama is also trying to protect patients. and while i wasn’t quoting when i said “best and most safe,” although you treat it as such… they say as much in the following:

    “The AMA says in some rare cases, intact dilation and extraction is the safest method of late-term abortion.”

    that’s where i get “most safe.”

    “The AMA recommends against intact dilation and extraction, unless alternative procedures pose a greater risk to the woman.”

    and that’s where i get “best.” as in, in some situations, it’s the “best” we have. doesn’t mean it’s great.

    does that not say that there are circumstances when partial birth abortion is the safest, least risky procedural option available? maybe “best” wasn’t the “best” word. but whatever. you knew what i meant. and you know what they mean in the above.

    and you most certainly are mincing words… you said “the AMA has said that “partial-birth” abortion is never medically necessary,” is patently false. not only did they NOT say that, they didn’t even say they said it… the catholic church did. it’s like a double-mincing!

    and you know what an “appropriate technique” is. gimme a break. i don’t think you’re stupid. you’re just pretending.

    and i’m not handy. i’m zingzing. hear my voice. move my hair.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Dr. Dee: Where in my article did I say to shut up? I was voicing my opinion of her comparison and continued on about her and some of her inadequacies.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    PS: agree with the teenager comment, Dr. Dee And the truth is: my teenage daughter has only used those words, “shut up”, with me ONCE. She just tunes me out now when she doesn’t want to hear what I have to say. Nice debating with ya! Gotta run. Merry Christmas

  • Baronius

    Zingy, I found that sentence:

    “The AMA says in some rare cases, intact dilation and extraction is the safest method of late-term abortion.”

    all over the internet, but its origin isn’t cited. I checked the AMA site, and found the following:

    “According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X.”

    Now, if there is no situation in which a procedure is the most appropriate, how can it simultaneously be the safest and best? If there is no situation in which it is the most appropriate, how can it be medically necessary? This isn’t a word game. This is a question of whether the AMA or democraticunderground.com is the best source for AMA information.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Christine, I figured I would go that route because many on the Far Right and in the Christiban movement actually preach that HIV is a disease inflicted by God on those immoral homerseckshuls. What really infuriates me, Christine, is the duplicity of these so called uber-conservative politicians. Were it not for the closeted, self-loathing homosexuals managing their operations, these politicians would be exposed for the frauds they are. Just as I find Christibans to be domestic enemies, I find the closeted ones just as dangerous. There is nothing worse than an individual who hates him/herself. Self-loathing leads to crime. It leads to self destructive behavior that affects lives far beyond the immediate scope of the individual.

    I can understand the points made on all sides and the perspectives from which they come. What I can’t understand is what ever happened to good old-fashioned common sense? When government has to legislate regulations stopping drivers from yapping on cell phones while driving, one must ask WTF? Believe it or not, we really need to get back to some old-fashioned values in this country.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “Sometimes we need to look at a situation from a different perspective and not always from the prism of our ideology.”

    Where in the article did you do that, Christine?

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Silas – The majority DOES rule as regards those who DO vote. In the instance when there are more than 2 candidates, the one having a plurality of the vote generally is dubbed the winner.

    As both Jeanne and Doc have noted, there are a lot of things that our tax money goes toward that, if given a choice, we’d choose not to allow our money to support. The most obvious of those being our current wars.

    I’m sure if we were handed a comprehensive list of everything our tax dollars are used for, we’d all probably go nuts checking off things that we find objectionable or otherwise a waste. But it doesn’t work that way, does it? Why should pro-lifers get this one exception? Why should they be able to deny women access to abortion procedures funded in whole or in part by tax dollars?

    In the end once again I say that this is not a decision that should be made or influenced by legislative process. Any abortion procedure – early term or late should be the decision of the woman with the counsel of her physician, family or friends. As long as the woman is considered to be mentally and emotionally able to make an informed decision, no one else should have anything to say about it.

  • zingzing

    baronius: “Now, if there is no situation in which a procedure is the most appropriate, how can it simultaneously be the safest and best?”

    that’s not what the sentence said at all. it merely said there isn’t a situation where it is the ONLY “appropriate procedure.”

    “This isn’t a word game.”

    sigh. you’re trying to make it one.

    and why, oh why did you cut off your quote where you did? it’s followed up directly by “The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman.”

    what do you think this is baronius? i don’t appreciate the disingenuousness. bad, bad baronius. if you can find it, i can find it as well. obviously the ama admits there are situations where it is the best available procedure.

    “This is a question of whether the AMA or democraticunderground.com is the best source for AMA information.”

    democraticunderground? my browser history tells me i’ve never been there (at least not since i last wiped my history, but i don’t think i ever have been there regardless), so i must have found it somewhere else. of course, i didn’t go searching for the exact phrase as you probably did. and i see that democraticunderground is way on the second page when you search that in google… so why bring it up? unless you were trying to suggest something you very well know to be untrue.

    and since the ama is the first thing that pops up when you actually enter that text, it’s rather strange that you say you couldn’t find it…

    really, baronius, that’s several random strikes… you’re not usually a sneaky debater. i usually can believe that you actually believe what you say. but when you purposefully leave out the bit of a quote that refutes your point, pretend not to know what a “appropriate procedure” is, pretend not to be able to find something that pops up immediately, and falsely accuse someone (all while underestimating their intelligence), i’ll just have to believe that you must be having a really bad day.

  • Baronius

    I don’t know where you got that quote from. I don’t think it was an etiquette breach to mention democraticunderground, but I’ve been wrong about social graces before. The point is that it wasn’t a quote from the AMA, as far as I can tell.

    Also, I didn’t cut off that quote. I ended it at the end of a sentence. I thought about cutting off the second half of that sentence, but I figured it would look suspicious. Taking those two sentences from the AMA site together, it essentially says that we can’t think of a reason why a doctor would do a d&x, and we advise against it, but it’s your call. At least that’s how I read it. Let’s face it, that “unless” rings hollow after that first sentence. It seems like the kind of thing they’d say to protect every doctor who’s ever performed one from being buried in lawsuits.

  • zingzing

    no, the thing i used first was not from the ama, but it wasn’t from du either. but it looks more like you were trying to say i was just parroting some dem website. which i wasn’t. maybe you weren’t trying to suggest that. but it sure did look like it. you get away with it on the benefit of the doubt.

    (but surely, you can’t have had any trouble finding that at the ama… maybe i should teach you some google skills if that’s the case.)

    the second sentence is absolutely crucial to understanding the first. and it goes against your point. so, it’s a misrepresentation of what the ama is saying to leave off the caveat.

    it seems obvious to me that they are saying exactly what they say: don’t use it unless you feel you have to. you get into some serious psychological work to pry what you pry out of there. and don’t think that the ama protects doctors from legal action. if they are trying to, they are doing a remarkably bad job.

  • Baronius

    If you google “in some rare cases, intact dilation and extraction is the safest method of late-term abortion” in quotes, the second site listed is democraticunderground. The first site is CNN, but I saw the title and it looked like just another political blog. But it doesn’t matter, because I have the benefit of the doubt! (Internet message boards are so peculiar. I can’t believe I just retraced my google.)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    The whole abortion and “Boxer” issue is a bogus one, and the sooner we recognize it the better.

    We live in a secular society governed by man-made rather than God-made laws. And for all the protections in the Constitutions about freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and separation of Church and State, imposition of Christian views on abortion and the importation of those views into our political arena constitute and obvious and flagrant violation: it’s like imposing one’s moral or religious views on those who do not share them.

    The matter of abortion is a moral/religious and not a political issue, and as long as aborting the fetus is not legally recognized as being equivalent to taking a life, our legal views in a secular society such as ours must prevail.

    And so it goes for public funding. As long as abortion is considered to be a medical procedure, rather than murder, there is no viable political/legal argument against it, or reasons for excluding it from the sundry list of procedures to be covered by any government-subsidized insurance plan.

    So notwithstanding Barbara Boxer’s rather inept analogy, her point still stands.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    As long as there are people like Barbara Boxer on the political stage, there will be demand for Viagra.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Cute, Silas.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Silas,

    You’re getting caught up in your religious fervor. I think you should tone down your rhetoric. It doesn’t suit your usually logical mind. Boxer made a valid point, her inept analogy notwithstanding.

    Let’s take religion out of politics, shall we?

  • Irene Wagner

    Baronius#87, I can’t believe I retraced your google search, either. Dang message boards. I was wondering why all the coyness about the path this bit of internet lore followed on its way from the AMA to this thread. You were right to insist on a credible source.

    The phrase under discussion, “in some rare cases, intact dilation and extraction is the safest method of late-term abortion”” appears to be an incomplete paraphrase of the American Medical Association’s “H-5.981 Policy Concerning HR 1122” and “H-5.982 Late-Term Pregnancy Termination Techniques,” available, not via a link, but as as a downloadable Word document here: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/471/523a06.doc

    The pertinent section, unedited except for italics, follows:

    (2) According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient. (3) The viability of the fetus and the time when viability is achieved may vary with each pregnancy. In the second-trimester when viability may be in question, it is the physician who should determine the viability of a specific fetus, using the latest available diagnostic technology. (4) In recognition of the constitutional principles regarding the right to an abortion articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, and in keeping with the science and values of medicine, the AMA recommends that abortions not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life. Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are, in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes. Except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus, and the near certainty of the independent viability of the fetus argues for ending the pregnancy by appropriate delivery.

    This is a more accurate summary than the one Democratic Underground provided: When a third-trimester pregnancy needs to be terminated because of maternal health problems, the delivery of a live baby poses no greater risk to the mother than delivery of a dead one. In the exceptional cases, a physician should be free to do whatever he can to save the life of the mother (see H-5.981 for AMA’s statement of qualified support for the ban.) In most cases, though, third semester abortions are bad medicine, precisely because they destroy viable human life when there is no medical necessity to do so.

    That view of partial birth abortion, the one presented in the excerpt from the original above, does not match the view of those who appealed to “the AMA’s position” for support of partial birth abortion on the basis of its necessity for the mother’s health. They have misrepresented the position of the AMA, which is informed by Hippocrates, who predated Christ by several centuries.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    This could be a subject for a dissertation, Irene. Are you suggesting, perchance, that Hippocrates was right?

  • zingzing

    “(Internet message boards are so peculiar. I can’t believe I just retraced my google.)”

    you had me doing it long before i had you doing it. silly indeed.

    and irene, i got the credible source and it agreed: “The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman.” if you can see that as anything but a suggestion that this procedure be made available in times when it is necessary, then i dunno what you read with, your eyes or your religion.

    and what’s all the “Except in extraordinary circumstances,” and “In most cases?” what do you think those are? those are the times when it is necessary.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    It’s still the case of a religious view informing the political or the legal. If abortion is a medical procedure and not murder, than why quibble over the details? Doing so only concedes the point to the opposition. So my question is, why even bother?

  • Irene Wagner

    1) The AMA supported the ban on partial birth abortions. From Item 4 H-5:982, repeated, for the benefit of Zing:

    Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are, in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes. Except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus, and the near certainty of the independent viability of the fetus argues for ending the pregnancy by appropriate delivery.

  • Irene Wagner

    2) The qualifications to AMA’s support for the ban on partial birth abortion are in H-5.981 Policy Concerning HR 1122.

    Got it?

  • Irene Wagner

    Take it up with the AMA, Rog.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    If your point is, Irene, that the fetus need not be sacrificed in order to save the life of a mother (your #96), then I have no quarrel with you – on moral grounds.

    The question still remains, though: who shall care for the unwanted child if the mother’s not willing?

  • Irene Wagner

    Well, Roger, you and Zing sound like you’d be great with kids.

  • Irene Wagner

    That question does deserve a serious answer though.

    The U.S. puts criminals whom “nobody wants” in prisons, at a higher rate than any other nation on this planet, Roger.

    If it comes to the point that there are no more prospective adoptive parents, or Group Homes staffed by people who are trained to help folks with disabilities realize a higher degree of their potential…if ALL those other possibilities are exhausted, then, if we as a country can’t arrange AT LEAST a bed and three squares and entertainment for the “unwanted children” in our country we all deserve whatever ill befalls us as a nation.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    So you do envisage the times of “Oliver Twist,” Irene? Sorry to disagree but it wasn’t the best of times.

    And I do fail to understand your reference to my being good or bad with “kids.” I do love them, especially the girls. Have had three grandchildren once, three, five and seven, all girls, thanks to my first wife.

    So what do you really mean?

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    or pro-lifers could volunteer which they rarely ever do

  • zingzing

    irene, you seem to want to ignore the “except in extraordinary circumstances,” and one of the ama’s qualifications for supporting the ban happens to be that they won’t support it unless there is specific wording that allows the procedure to be used in the case that it will save the life of the mother, as stated in a letter they sent to the senate.

    to make myself clear, i don’t like the idea of it any better than you do. i don’t think this procedure should be an option unless it is truly necessary, which it very rarely is. but if it is the procedure which a doctor thinks presents the best possibility of survival for the mother, i want that option available.

    beyond that, as it stands now, doctors just skirt the law by lethally injecting the fetus and then performing the procedure. so instead of a barbarous abortion, we now have a execution, then a desecration.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Christine, @ #78:

    “When are these progressive Democrats going to get out of their pathetic ideology and off their “we know what is best for America” pedestal for just a few minutes and do what is right?”

    In other words, the Democrats in question (including Boxer) should stop voicing opinions you disagree with and agree with you instead.

    That sounds a lot like “shut up” to me.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    And you can tell me to shut up, I get that a lot from my teenage daughter these days.

    Christine, this is off topic, and I do not mean to hurt your feelings – but if your daughter tells you to “shut up”, you need to do some serious thinking.

    Both of our sons are strong-willed and passionate arguers who will not give way easily at all, (they take after the old man that way) but neither of them would ever tell me or my wife to “shut up” – ever. We both taught them “honor your mother and father that you may lengthen the days of your life on the Land G-d gave you.”

    They argue with us (especially with me), they differ with us (especially with me), and they get angry at us (especially at me) – but they never, never tell us to “shut up”.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “And you can tell me to shut up, I get that a lot from my teenage daughter these days.”

    You might want to look at that, Christine. A possible reason as to why you’re being so vitriolic against such as Ms Boxer?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    So you do envisage the times of “Oliver Twist,” Irene? Sorry to disagree but it wasn’t the best of times.

    No, Roger. “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” Dickens would have argued that times of great adversity also gave rise to more intense joy and value of life.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Hey Guys, appreciate the concern, but I did follow that comment up with the fact that she did it ONCE when I wouldn’t let her do a sleep over because she was getting a poor grade. And then I said it NEVER happened again and when I scold her she tunes me out. No disrespectful words because she knows I won’t tolerate. But will let her voice her grievances.

    Guess you missed my follow up. But that happens a lot here on BC. But I know you, Ruvy, are looking out for me. And maybe Roger too.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    It was eighteenth century, Dave, and Dickens’s famous line has got to be taken in context. So while I don’t disagree with you about the value of adversity in general, we surely don’t want to revisit the ugly past.

    Not that we could, thank goodness.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Christine,

    I may disagree with you on politics and question your allegiances, but your enemy I’m not.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    And to Dr. D: 105..I guess you could interpret it that way, but that is not how I meant it. And since that is how I interpret my daughter when she tunes me out, guess it is fair.

    But again, I did say, “for a few minutes”. I am not that arrogant to think I have all the answers. But did take much offense to her statement and how her and Reid could possibly consider an abortion “health care” (unless it is used as a means to save the women’s life, which is rare).

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    OK Roger, xo

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I think it’s good, Christine, that you’re being exposed to different points of view from the young, your daughter, for example, and her friends. You should consider yourself lucky to still be part of that conversation and, if I were you, I would definitely not shy away from it; quite the contrary, think of it as a blessing.

    At least you’re being included, and that’s something. So don’t squander the opportunity. None of us are too old to learn.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Roger, great wisdom. I appreciate that. I am learning from two generations, my teenager daughter and my 27-year-old (her birthday is tomorrow). Some of it shocks me (and I’m no prude), but very enlightening at the same time. And some refreshing and terrific.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m still puzzled, Christine, about the connection between your past and your present political views. But that’s a topic for another time and place. Someday perhaps.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Anyone who openly opposes abortion should be forced with threats of physical harm and financial ruin to take any and all of the unwanted children and raise them. It should all be laid in their laps. Put your sanctimony where your intrusive mouth is.

    B

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    To say it in other words, put up or shut up.

  • Irene Wagner

    Roger, I had perceived your question to me in #99 the way I perceive El Bicho’s remark in #103. So, I bounced all those insinuations right back at ya. “You care about kids, then YOU figure out how to take care of them without killing them.”

    In your case specifically, Roger, I have no reason to believe that you’d be anything but a loving and beloved grandpa. Even if you were an ogre, though, it would have absolutely no bearing on your ability or right to voice your opinion on issues regarding the care of children. And being a Christian doesn’t have any bearing on my ability or right to do the same.

    Orphanages, if they are run like prisons, are not the ideal. But even if they WERE to be run like prisons, I can’t picture either you or Baritone (who brought up the relative merits of being in foster care and not being at all) standing in front of a state pen and exclaiming: “Give them liberty, or give them death!”

    Zing, who knows? Maybe I need the link to the “not du” “not ama” source of your information to understand ID&X as well as you do. All I have is the AMA website to go by. The members of the AMA do not think as a monolithic unit. Apparently, however, no one in the AMA could think of an instance in which an IDX would be necessary to save the life of the mother.

    The differences of opinion regarding the ban cluster around the provisions of criminal repurcussions for a doctor performing an IDX. Apparently there are some (and I DO understand their point of view) who don’t want the option of IDX removed in case, one day, in hypothetical land, a situation arose in which it truly was necessary to save the life of the mother. I’m guessing, though, that there would be enough medical staff who witnessed and could verify the necessity of the procedure that all penalties would be dropped for that particular doctor in that case.

    And BECAUSE of the likelihood of charges for that doctor being dropped in that hypothetical instance, I lean toward letting the ban stand as is, without language that exempts doctors from being bound by it, which would tend to negate the effect of a ban, after all. I wanted to make sure it came out in this discussion, because it was a point that you certainly weren’t emphasizing: the AMA’s position is that discouraging, nay, BANNING, the destruction of independently viable fetuses is a good thing to do.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m no granpa, Irene. I was twenty five with grandchildren to my (dis)credit, so don’t feel safe with me around.

    But seriously now, I don’t wish orphanage on anyone. And if that’s your solution to the abortion problem, I really have no response.

    It’s still the case of a religious viewpoint trying to make its way into body politic. And it has got nothing to do with my own thinking on the matter. The way I see it, it’s but a matter of the individual’s conscience, nothing else.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Ok Baritone, I would in a heartbeat…and I’m sure there are millions out there that would too, like Irene here on BC.

    #116 Roger, yeah, another conversation indeed. Began an interest in politics around 2000 (around age 37). And you can say that I am a work in progress: politically and in other ways. NOT to confuse that word with progressive…lol

  • Irene Wagner

    Christine, I’m guessing Baritone would embrace them all in a heartbeat, too, if he could, which he can’t, not anymore than you or I can. But thanks for the vote of confidence ;)

    I think, though, if we stopped seeing one another so much The Enemy, The Libs, The Conservatives, The prolifers, the Christians, (Silas’ creative but insulting Christoban although I understand the origin of some of his animus)….

    ….we could, collectively, come up with an alternative somewhere between “kill em all” and “have we not workhouses?” (Dave Nalle, you’ve got me thinking about Dickens)

  • Irene Wagner

    That’s about all I have to say about that, I guess. I am suddenly seized with a desire to watch Mr. Magoo’s Christmas Carol with my kids. Merry Christmas, Christine.

  • smiley

    Mssss Senator Boxer has y’all so hot ‘n bothered that I’d say the proper comparison is viagra with Herself.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Now you’ve done it, Irene. I’m suddenly seized with a desire to read the original A Christmas Carol – now, do I still possess my father’s old copy or am I going to have to strain my eyes reading it on bartleby.com?

    Failing that, I guess I’ll just have to watch A Muppet Christmas Carol, which I maintain is the finest film adaptation to date of Dickens’ masterpiece.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Thanks Irene and Dr. D: Merry Christmas to you and all my BC fans! lol

  • Ruvy

    I didn’t catch your follow-up statement, Christine. My main concern was for you – not the topic at hand. My wife told me that daughters could be wicked to their mothers and she is glad we have sons. She has been a daughter – I guess she would know….

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Thanks Ruvy, and your wife is SO CORRECT. Daughters can be wicked to their mothers. Even my Angel (real name Angelica) has been that way with me and I have wept and prayed over it. But I am more strong-willed than she. AS my other daughter, Nicole (27), turned out loving and wonderful–proof that it will all be okay and perseverance with love and prayer is key.

    Do appreciate your concern. God bless you, your “wise” wife and your sons, etc.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    “…a bed and three squares and entertainment…”

    is only about enough care to nurture borderline psychopaths…

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    irony would be that they all grew up and started killing off the very people who didn’t want them aborted…

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    ignore me Irene…I am on codeine for pain..or maybe I am just wacky…lol

  • zingzing

    irene: “Apparently, however, no one in the AMA could think of an instance in which an IDX would be necessary to save the life of the mother.”

    i think it’s apparent that they can. if there’s never a situation where it is necessary, why on earth would they perform it at all? it’s gruesome. seems pretty simple to me.

    “Apparently there are some (and I DO understand their point of view) who don’t want the option of IDX removed in case, one day, in hypothetical land, a situation arose in which it truly was necessary to save the life of the mother.”

    apparently, it does. because it’s still being performed, only with the added step of lethally injecting the fetus to skirt the law.

    “I wanted to make sure it came out in this discussion, because it was a point that you certainly weren’t emphasizing: the AMA’s position is that discouraging, nay, BANNING, the destruction of independently viable fetuses is a good thing to do.”

    except in the case that it has to be done in order to save the mother’s life. that’s the language that the ama wanted. they didn’t get it. so they just go around it. i doubt there are many women who get that far into pregnancy without wanting a baby. but i also know that medical complications come up whenever they damn well please.

    i used to be quite against the procedure until i started looking into it. i found it barbaric and useless. but then i questioned myself. why on earth would anyone want to do this? answer is that they don’t want to. it’s just an ugly reality of life.

    it shouldn’t be used in any circumstance other than when it is an absolute necessity in order to save the life of the mother. banning it does nothing but kill women. late term abortions can be done in any number of ways. why would you choose this way? basically a doctor has to crush a baby’s skull and scoop out the brains while it’s still in the mother. i’m not sure i can think of a woman or a doctor that would enjoy that, or even not be severely traumatized by it.

    all i can say is that if the situation came up where a doctor told me that he couldn’t perform a life-saving procedure on my girlfriend or wife, i’d tell him to fuck the gov’t and respect his oath, or things would get really ugly.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Let’s take religion out of politics, shall we?

    Why, Roger? Aren’t the conflicts in which we are involved rooted in religion? Is not the usurpation of the Republican Party rooted in religion? Is not what is going on in Uganda rooted in religion? The United States is a nation which is supposed to be governed by secular law devoid of religious dogma. If the Far Right gets its’ way this country will become a hybrid Christian Republic. What’s happening in Uganda is a precursor of what these infidels are going to try and achieve in America. Like it or not, this entire C Street phenomenon is not getting the press it requires. The members of Congress who are party to this little cult need to be exposed and driven from office. They are an invasive cancer on American society which will kill it if we don’t treat it now.

    …I am on codeine for pain..or maybe I am just wacky…lol

    Or a combination of the above.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Thanks for filling it in, Silas. That, and the soon-to-become obsolete notion of nation-states.

    We must rid ourselves of the suspicion that any concerted action on behalf of humanity and for the common good is tainted by any special interest. Only then we’ll be free and clear.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    I’m leaning more toward globalization as opposed to nation-states, Roger. You’re right — we’re headed in that direction and, as Martha says, perhaps that’s a good thing.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I really do think, Silas, that the Star Trek scenario, featuring a United Federation of Planets, wasn’t that far-fetched.

    Imagine the world as one. John Lennon comes to mind.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    The fulfillment of Alexander’s dream. Ah, the irony.

  • Irene Wagner

    Great start, Zing-Zing: i used to be quite against the procedure until i started looking into it. i found it barbaric and useless. but then i questioned myself. why on earth would anyone want to do this?

    ID&X was developed originally to shorten the late term abortion procedure back in the day when very few hospitals wanted to provide overnight stays to accomodate late trimester abortions. Long and short of it: heads take less time to pull out when they’re crushed. The cervix of course, will have to be opened from its normally closed state to about 10 cm, but that process can be started ahead of time in a preliminary visit.

    So ID&X wouldn’t be the best choice for pregnancy termination in a medical emergency, as you can see. Opening a cervix can take all day. Opening an abdomen, minutes. ID&X works fine if you’re dealing with an abortion on a baby with Down’s syndrome though. Now, you could eliminate the head-crushing routine, and wait the extra hours it takes to deliver the baby live. You’d have a problem though: an independently viable fetus that might just decide to go ahead and…live.

    One could look at the motivation of increased profits resulting from a shorter turnaround time, too, but since apparently its only the GOOD capitalists who get involved in the Abortion Industry, that’s irrelevant.

    Scissors and crushed brains or adoption/group homes/orphanages? You might have a little more thinking to do about this, ZingZing.

  • Irene Wagner

    Silas, I read your comment#47 about the awful things that happened to you when you were a kid. I wouldn’t have told you to keep quiet. That was bad advice. ZingZing, you can go ahead and have the last word. I’m done.

    Cindy, hope you’re feeling better soon.

  • zingzing

    “Scissors and crushed brains or adoption/group homes/orphanages? You might have a little more thinking to do about this, ZingZing.”

    if only that was all that was going on here. are all late term abortions independently viable? no. does cutting open the womb before term sometimes leave women incapable of having another child? yes.

    it’s like you’re ignoring reality.

    “ZingZing, you can go ahead and have the last word. I’m done.”

    thank god. i started repeating myself a long time ago.

  • Jasmine Haynes

    If I were Senator Boxer, I would have compared an abortion to a vascectomy. They both effect the other partner, and it’s a reproductive ceasing procedure. Even though the opposite of a vascectomy is a tubal ligation,which stops the egg from joining the sperm, all of them are reproductive decision making operations, and it’s up to the individual.It would not be fair for the government not to fund an abortion, when they fund vascectomies.

  • John Sitton

    I have read and read and read all this hype and I would be willing to bet that those of you whom seem to be the biggest complainers are most probably the ones that voted for Obama, his “Czars” all of whom do not have to be approved by congress and all the left wingers out there.

    I have ask several people around this midwest town of 3800 folks if they voted for Obama , would they do so again ? two folks, one poker playing friend and my sister said that they would, only two people that have not seen the light yet
    but I keep thinking that they will and come next year I am sure that Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, Sen. Dobbs ( remember him, he got a big loan and was on the committee) , Barney Frank,(remember him, he is chairman of the approiations committee that gave the Dobbs loan , Senator Boxer, and lets not forget Feinstein out of California who voted for $52 BILLION to go to california and ah yes, her husbands company got a fat stimulus check……..People, we have to put a stop to all this and it begins in the 2010 election, talk about viagra, talk about abortions, talk about “Tiger”, but if you have any sense of urgency and any sense of sustaining our great America, put your efforts towards booting out all the Liberals and let them take the ‘CZARS” WITH THEM TOO.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    OH, peeee-shaw. Barack Obama is the convenient scapegoat — an immaculate deception by the Right. Like it or not, the Executive doesn’t cut the government checks. Congress is where the fundamental problem with our federal government resides. And, as I beat this dead horse yet again, the special interests and lobbyists are controlling Congressional behavior. That’s easy to recognize. Why is it that so many refuse to recognize the same?

    but if you have any sense of urgency and any sense of sustaining our great America, put your efforts towards booting out all the Liberals and let them take the ‘CZARS” WITH THEM TOO.

    And then what? Replace them with uber-conservatives funded by Rupert Murdoch? Liberals aren’t the problem. Neither are conservatives. The electorate who refuses to show up and perform their civic duty are screwing the rest of us. If they release yet another stimulus payment to taxpayers next year, those disbursements should be made ONLY to those who actually bothered to vote.

  • John Sitton

    Permit me to add to #142 I forgot the gentleman that has apparently taken the spotlight from the Reverend J.J. since J. fathered a child other than one to his own wife and that is Rep. Charles Rangel (who is under investigation by F.B.I.)who was the subject on a t.v. show the other night whereas he critized “Tiger” for being a “racist” in as much as he never picked a African American lady to have an affair with

  • John Sitton

    Silas: I think that you and I are just close to being on the same page and allow me to name right along with Murdock,….a man called Soros……..and the name of GE exec. which escapes me now, he is in bed with the Gov. getting millions of dollars upons millions with his goverment contracts
    there are so many that are bringing socialism, Marxism, communism, into our daily lifes routine and actually forcing us to take it on, together we must stand, I am not afraid for myself nor my children nor my grandchildren as I think I have prepared but with this spend, spend , spend and seemingly unforgivable attitude towards the future generations, it has to stop……

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Did anyone ever consider that most African American women probably don’t even like golf? I mean, just how “manly” are golfers? Were there any sexy golfers before Tiger?

    And, does Barbara Boxer even play golf? I know John Boehner plays lots of golf — at the expense of lobbyists and special interests. How do we know that this entire Tiger Woods saga is nothing more than a vast right wing conspiracy to take media attention away from Ensign, Sanford, Coburn and Plain? Yeah, that’s the ticket. Tiger Woods is a victim of the Far Right.

  • Carey W

    I’m sick of Barbara B.& Nancy P. Between the two of them they don’t have enough brains to blow their noses!!! It’s time for them to go. Neither one of them have a lick of common since. San Fransisco thanks for screwing the whole State with these two Moran’s.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Yes, Carey, they are both morons and need to get their “walking papers”––2010 is not close enough.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    From your keyboard to the voting booth, Christine. The notion of another two years of Nancy Pelosi is just frightening. As far as Senator Boxer? California needs a rebellion.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Right on! Silas.

  • http://boxer.senate.gov/ Barbara Boxer

    Why is she even speaking? Who let her talk? Every time that she opens her mouth, it degrades the public’s opinion of her ability to lead. It questions her intellectual level.

    My goodness, who told her she can speak on my behalf?