Wow, you had enough material there to last you a few months... I heard Bush supporters are prone to blowing their loads early though. ; )

Let me add a few more losers to that list:

1) 48% of the American population
2) The rest of the world
3) Freedom

HHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yup, here in "Old Europe" things are pretty grim. An aura of 'loss' fills the air everytime I step outside.

I didn't get through your whole list, but Michael Moore? I don't really like the guy, but a Kerry win would be the worst thing for him. He can easily make 2 movies in the next 4 years, maybe more, and he's got 55,853,451 people waiting to buy tickets.

Wow, you've got a lot of enemies Dude. You must be paranoid. Better stock up on guns.

I can't fit any more guns in my shed...guess I'll have to get rid of the dog so I can convert the doghouse. Yee-ha.

Since you brought it up, I am proud to support the right of women to access the medical procedure of Dilation and Extraction to terminate a pregnancy. I am also proud to call things by their actual names and not parrot the language of anti-choice policy wonks.

Hmm. "Dilation and Extraction" sounds equally revolting to me.

Karen, my mom emailed me on Wednesday and told me to not get knocked up because those wankers were going to take away our right to choose. Only she didn’t say knocked up or wankers, I’m paraphrasing. I told her that, for me, the right to choose will always be a plane ticket away. It’s only the poor women who will suffer.

I am very familiar with the term "Dialation and Extraction"....that would be the "procedure" where the aboritonist grabs the baby's legs with foreceps and pulls it into the birth canal revealing all but the head. The abortionist jams medical scissors into the back of the baby's skull and speads them to enlarge the wound. A suction catheteter is inserted in the skull and the child's brain is sucked out. Then, the collapsed head of the 20-32 week baby is removed from the birth canal. It is absolutely revolting no matter what you call it. "Partial Birth Abortion" is actually a pretty tame way to describe it.

Some other totally legal procedures:

Suction Aspiration: Early abortion that is the most common kind - A suction tube is inserted into the womb through the cervix. This dismembers the body of the developing fetus and tears the placenta from the uterus. Often, the parts are recognizable as arms, legs, head, etc. In some cases, serious complications result from infection from fetal or placental tissue that is allowed to remain in the uterus mistakenly.

Dialation and Curettage: Similar to suction aspiration only a loop shaped steel knife is used to scrape the wall of the uterus, thus similarly dismembering the child.

Other legal late-term techniques (third to ninth month):

Dialation and Evacuation: Similar to Dialation and Extraction only foreceps are used to grab a part of the child that already has calcified bones. The parts are twisted and torn away, the placenta sliced away, and bleeding is profuse.

Saline Amniocentesis: A solution of concentrated salt is inserted through the mother's abdomen directly into the sac. The baby swallows the salt repeatedly...and after about an hour, dies of salt poisening. The mother goes into labor, usually about a day later, and delivers a dead, burned and shriveled baby. Japan and other countries have outlawed this procedure, mainly because of the risks to the mother (so much for a plane ticket away).

Prostaglandins: Concentrations of these hormones are injected into the amniotic sac inducing violent labor and premature birth of a child usually too young to survive. This method is often combined with the saline method to ensure the baby is delivered dead. Unavoidably, however, this method sometimes results in the aborted child being born alive. Nurses have come forward over the years, including the renowned Jill Stanek, to report horrific stories of the children being cast aside in laundry rooms or other areas of the hospital until they die. Side effects of prostaglandis for the mother are sometimes unpredictable and can be very severe including rupture of the uterus and even cardiac arrest.

"Policy Wonk" my fucking ass.

If its IN MY BODY, then I get to make a choice about what to do with it. It doesn't matter how you want to discribe it.

I have every right to have a baby sucked out of me, if I want, because it's INSIDE MY BODY. If I want to bleed out little bits of dead baby all over the floor, that's perfectly alright, because it's coming out of MY BODY.

You of course, have the right to choose to take your head out of your ass. I promise not to try to legislate against it, even though I am sure it belongs there since you obviouly have shit for brains.

What's inside my body is mine, not yours and I will do with it as I damn well please.

Wow...that's revealing. Not sure who you are, but I don't think that needs any more response other than, "how barbaric". My wife, mother and millions of other women agree with me. But they all must have "shit for brains" since they don't agree with you...hmmm?

Case closed.

KW: I've had a hard time deciding whether or not to respond to this. Feeling personally insulted by your comments I feel like I need to say a couple of things.

First off, regardless of my views on the issue, it is not my place to judge others who do not agree with me.

"If I want to bleed out little bits of dead baby all over the floor, that's perfectly alright, because it's coming out of MY BODY."

As a woman you have been blessed with with possibly the most amazing gift we experience in life, and with this gift comes a great responsibility. Your comments trivialize this responsibility and I find them to be completely dehumanizing.

Dude, women who don't want to have abortions don't have to. It's that simple.

Ryan, respect for life and its sacredness comes in many forms. I for one do not believe that a life should be brought into this world because of birth control failure -- I believe, very strongly, that all children should be wanted and planed. I, however, do not try to force these views on others by taking away their right to choose to bare children when they do not want or plan for them.

Brette, we just have two very different world-views, I respect that.

I just strongly believe that regardless of who's body it takes place in, society is way to cavalier and uneducated about abortion, which in many cases amounts to the brutal murder of an innocent human being.

Brette, we just have two very different world-views, I respect that.

I just strongly believe that regardless of who's body it takes place in, society is way to cavalier and uneducated about abortion, which in many cases amounts to the brutal murder of an innocent human being.

Brette, we have two very different world-views, and I understand that I won't convince you.

I just strongly believe that regardless of who's body it takes place in, society is way too cavalier about abortion, what in most cases amounts to the brutal murder of an innocent human being for the sake of convenience.

Not sure how three versions of that got posted. I think the last one was the wording I finally settled on...

I can not respect someone who, is not capable of accepting that what I do with my body is my bussiness and not theirs.

I agress that my ability to have bear children is amazing, wonderful, and beautiful. I take it very very seriously.

That is WHY is speak about abortion in these terms. I want to leave no doubt in anyone's mind that it is a serious matter. I love children, but that does not mean that I don't have th right to have a pre-born child removed from my body, if I want.

Ive never had an abortion, but those i know who have dont do it "for the sake of convenience." You make it sound so trivial, most of these girls feel terrible about it but realize that they would have been totally unable to care for a child or go through the pregnancy. The decision to have an abortion, at least from what I understand, is not as easy as "hm, i think ill have captian crunch instead of toast for breakfast"

So if a woman is a victim of rape or incest and becomes pregnant then she should be forced to keep her baby? Or if there is a really life threatening situation for both mom and baby should the pregnancy go forward?

Its very easy for a man to say abortion is "the brutal murder of an innocent human being for the sake of convenience" or a woman who has never had to deal with the struggle of aborting a child. Considering the supreme court cant even agree on when life actually begins I think its pretty sick that any one person thinks they can tell a woman when that point is and call her a murderer.

I wouldnt get an abortion myself, but I sure as heck would never tell another woman she shouldnt get one or vote for legislation that would keep her from having one.

And on the subject of plane tickets, apparently many americans were looking into moving to canda after the election. I was one of them ;)

I certainly don't think it is a light decision, and my heart goes out to anyone who faces or has faced it. Like I said at first, I have no right to judge. Many Christians take their stance on abortion a bit too far and forget that their religion also tells them that they are not the ones who are supposed to be doing the judging.

In case anyone is interested, a book was written a few years back that studied the abortion issue in regards to incest and rape. You might find the results rather suprising:

"Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About their Pregnancies, Abortions and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault, brings together the experiences of nearly 200 such women. Published by Acorn Books and edited by David C. Reardon, Julie Makimaa and Amy Sobie, it includes survey results from a study of 192 women who became pregnant through sexual assault and either had abortions or carried their pregnancies to term, insightful personal testimonies, and informative overview chapters.

"What we found from the survey is that, contrary to what most people think, women who become pregnant through rape or incest don't usually want abortions," Reardon said. "Most women who aborted did so only because they felt it was their only choice, and more than 80 percent said it was a choice they deeply regretted. Many felt that abortion only compounded their emotional trauma and allowed others to ignore their need for compassion and support."

In contrast, Reardon said, most of the women who carried to term reported that they believed they had made the right decision in having their children.

From one of the testimonies:

"Having lived through rape, and having raised a child 'conceived in rape,' I feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal for rape and incest. I feel that we're being used to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side of the story."

What about all of the women who, chose to abort and felt they made the right choice?

Isn't the point that all of these women were free to make the choice that was best for them?

Women who feel they made the right choice:
imnotsorry.net
i-had-an-abortion.org

The case that sticks out in my mind the most for abortion is when there is a greater chance of the woman dying during labor than if she has an abortion and when there is very little chance for a living baby to come out even if she decides to have it. It's one thing to tell a woman she has to risk her life in Iraq to free some living Iraqis. I am not going to tell a woman she has to risk her life for a baby that won't be born alive. I don't believe men should tell women they have die like that.

I don't think it should be illegal for doctor's to tell their patients how they honestly feel when they feel that marijuana is their best hope and I don't think it should be illegal for a doctor to allow a woman to get an abortion when it's the best way to save her life.

I don't want to get into debating the exceptions. I believe people have reasonable arguments on both sides there, and it's good to consider all the information...thanks Ryan.

I know all cases aren't simply for "the sake of convenience", but if you read my post again, the main point was the cavalier attitude about abortion in society in general. Often, convenience is what it comes down to.

I know several women who have been faced with this decision. I know women who have decided both ways. One of the biggest complaints from the women who decided to have abortions when they were young, and regret it now, is the lack of REAL information they had. They were young and confused and now that they are older, they often resent what many see as being used as a pawn to further an agenda. They had no idea what an abortion actually was, and were not counseled by PP on the devastating emotional effects that have stayed with them forever. Their parents pressured them too, but they understand now that PP is a political organization with an agenda that every abortion that does NOT happen hampers, and they were used to advance that agenda by offering another baby up on the alter of choice.

KW - I'm sorry you can't respect me. Personally, I was horrified by the way you spoke in the earlier post and thanked God then and there for the women in my life who regardless of what exceptions that may believe in, or the exact point they believe life begins, are nothing like you. Also, after your example of how dillusional the sole worshippers the "choice god" have become in the post "Roe" era, I believe all of us born after 1973 should thank whatever god we may acknowledge that we were even born in the first place.

Women who made the wrong choice:

http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/

I would think it is clear that I am equally horrified by your desire to make choices for me and other women.

Also, I do agree that information is key in helping girls and women makes these choices.

However, it still comes down to the fact that it is a personal choice, not a democratic one.

You don't need to worry about going to hell just because other people commit sins, so why try to legislate away a person's right to make whatever choice they want?

Perhaps we should legislate against free will?

While I really want to have a family because I think it would be fun and challenging, I question whether I want to bring a, new, innocent, life into this overpopulated, polluted, generally fucked up world. On top of that, I come from an ethnic minority that has been kicked out of every country we’ve been in and I honestly don’t know how much longer we’ll be allowed to have freedom in America. I don’t want my children to have to deal with persecution that my great-grandparents moved here to avoid. Thus, for now, I am only considering adoption or foster care as my child rearing options. This makes me sad, because I think being pregnant and giving birth would be cool experiences, but I just can’t stomach the world I would be bring a life into.

KW - Every law we pass...every judgement rendered in a court, is the result of a law passed to regulate the "sins" of others. This is where I believe Ryan, with all due respect to him, is confusing spiritual judgement with earthly judgement. When Christ said "judge not lest ye be judged" he also told the adulteress to "go and sin no more". He set a bar for judgement saying we must make sure that our hearts are right before we participate in that earthly judgement we have a duty to render. We indeed have a duty to make collective societal judgements about what are acceptable norms and what are not and indeed do so all the time.

Further, I'm sorry you are equally horrified about things you assume. All I have commented on in this thread is the reality of what abortion is...and my sadness at the attitudes brought on by what I call the "blind choice culture". I have never offered what my legislative solution would be. Further, Roe V. Wade can be argued against solely on the basis of judicial over-reach (the Court inserting itself into a state situation where it had no business, thus affecting policy for the entire country) without even discussing the merits of "legislating morality" or not. If Roe were overturned, each state would then be free to decide, so the "right to choose" would not be instantly taken away as some would have you believe. I don't want to make any decisions for anyone, and I don't know what I would want in my state if Roe were overturned. What I do know, is that I would like to see alot of hearts and minds changed on this issue..that would be my first priority. So if you think means I want to somehow "make a decision for you", then you go right ahead and think that way. I know where my heart is, and what my intentions are.

Brette...how sad you feel that way, in a country where there is so much freedom and opportunity for so many, and the opportunity to battle injustice where things occasionally fall short. And you should at least acknowledge the incredible progress that has been made toward cleaning up industry since the early 80s. I'm really not trying to argue here...I truly feel bad that you feel that way. I don't want anyone to feel that way in my country.

Overpopulated? Have you ever driven across Wyoming? LOL...we take ourselves way too seriously sometimes.

I, too, a sad by the state of this country. I know that you are not trying to argue, but at the same time, you are defending the chipping away at my freedom that I’m afraid of. First it’s the right to choose whom I can marry, then it’s the right to choose what can happen to my body -- it’s only a matter of time before it’s the right to practice my religion.

Brette, protecting the freedom of religion is a serious concern that I share. But, I just don't get the angle that somehow abortion and gay marriage are now the benchmark issues to illustrate how we are "losing" our freedoms. When your great-grandparents came here for freedom, they came to a country where abortion was considered, of course, wrong and same-sex marriage would have never been heard of. I don't think you can convincingly use these two issues to frame an argument that we are somehow losing all these freedoms that we used to have.

We live in the most prosperous society in the history of the world. I understand and share many of your concerns for the future, but the excessive drama involved in drawing the conclusion about not wanting to bring a child into such an awful world/county I just can't relate to. We're so blessed we don't know what problems are in America...even many of the poor don't truly know, because they have the government and social safety nets to back them up. We often create our own problems here in America...so we have something to occupy our time. I would challenge you to point to another country...or another point in history, where your child would have more of a chance of being both free and prosperous than he does in America 2004. That's where I'm coming from ...and that's why I'm sad you seem to not see that, because I want you to be happy (even though I have shit for brains...lol).

I am a very happy person who is not at all prone to excessive drama. And I do not think it is an illogical conclusion that taking away of some rights leads to taking away of all rights. Just yesterday, I was disucssion with a woman how her parents could not choose the name of thier own childern while living in Argentina. She said to me, "I don't think people in this country understand what it means to give up rights."

Just as Martin Niemöller, a German who resisted the Nazis said, "First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."

I can easily say, "First, they took away the right for two people of the same sex to marry, and I did not speek out, because I was not a lesbian. Then, they took away women's right to choose, and I did not speek out, because I was not pregnant. . ." Where will it stop?

You just made my point. I agree with the danger of a "slippery slope" on taking rights away...but again, the use of THOSE TWO ISSUES as examples makes no sense in the context of history. Especially this:

"I can easily say, 'First, they took away the right for two people of the same sex to marry, and I did not speek out, because I was not a lesbian.'"

People of the same sex have NEVER had the right to marry one another...and you phrase it as if they have and people are taking that away. That's the exact point I made in the last post which you appear to have missed. In addition, while the right to a legal abortion that the Supreme Court created has been around for a little while, it was new in 1973. You suggested that your great-grandparents fled oppression to come to the US, and I believe you...but I also know they did not come here for abortion rights or gay marriage rights. Those two issues can not logically be the focal point for an argument about losing rights that past generations came here for, because they did not exist then. That's all I'm trying to say.

The woman from Argentina's quote "I don't think people in this country understand what it means to give up rights" is totally correct! I agree...and it helps make my point about how excessively blessed we are in America in so many ways, but at the same time should always be on guard to protect our rights as Americans, and not take that for granted. I was just trying to lend you some perspective, that's all, and I'm very glad you're happy!

what about taxation without representation? id say that is a pretty good example of how the rights of some in this country have been undermined. In the nation's capital no less! Not to mention all of the immigrants that pay taxes here but cant vote. And inmates, though I think that is being contested or something. I also heard that texas was redistricted (?) to suppress the effect of minority votes, however that is pretty much complete and utter hearsay for me ;)

Considering the government in this country doesnt even let the citizens of this nation's capital have fair representation I dont think its a far cry to say no same sex marriage and no abortion follow suit, as in fact one has. Not to mention the fact arlen specter for one has pledged to let Bush's pro-life judicial candidates through. Granted, that doesnt mean they would be appointed, but the fact that the majority in the house and senate (and our president) even consider putting people in power that limit womens rights is disgusting.

Women have fought hard for equal rights in this country and even still a woman only makes about 80cents to a mans dollar. Supporting leaders that work to reduce womens rights is a slap in the face to suffragites and really all women in this country. This is our country too. I wont move to canada without going to throw tomatoes at the white house first should they start appointing anti-abortion judges ;)

"This is where I believe Ryan, with all due respect to him, is confusing spiritual judgement with earthly judgement."

I should have been a bit more clear on this. When I say it is not my place to judge, I was speaking more on a spiritual basis. In other words, I believe a murderer should be held accountable for their actions, but it is not my place to look down upon them and lay judgement.

On that note KW, "You don't need to worry about going to hell just because other people commit sins, so why try to legislate away a person's right to make whatever choice they want?" : Am I to presume you are a proponent of anarchy? Legally I do not have the right to rape and murder, these "rights" have been legislated away from me.

Man, I would like to say that I am soooo not down with the argument that just because, certain rights have not been spelled out for us means that we don't have them.

So yeah, I guess that the right for gays to marry was never GIVEN TO THEM. I suppose I was inccorect to assume it was one of those fancy inalienable rights we hear so much about, but see so little.

I just don't understand WHY we all care so much about what other people do.

Ryan. I think we both know that in the case of abortion this type of logic does not apply. There is to much gray area. You will never be able to convince me (and I guess like 2 other people) that my right to do what I want with my body, trumps the un-borns right to well, be born, to use your language.

Rape and murder are diffrent, those are cases where it is clear that other's rights have been infringed upon.

"Granted, that doesnt mean they would be appointed, but the fact that the majority in the house and senate (and our president) even consider putting people in power that limit womens rights is disgusting."

Fine, but you just have to understand that other Americans who value their rights, view this issue very differetly, and very much appreciate Justices Scalia and Thomas, and their traditional view of the constitution. If you truly want to be tolerant, you have to understand that people who are pro-life and pro traditional marriage are just as American as you are, and just because they don't agree that certain things should be "rights", they equally value the right to life, religios freedom, property rights, freedom of speech, even if their angles for understanding what these rights are is different from yours.

KW- "Man, I would like to say that I am soooo not down with the argument that just because, certain rights have not been spelled out for us means that we don't have them."

I TOTALLY agree. There must be a source for our rights other than human beings, otherwise people can decide what our rights are for us and that inevitably leads to disaster. I believe our rights are granted by the Creator (God) as our Declaration of Independence states. The same God that instituted marriage in Scripture, and mentions it over 400 times in those sacred texts, each time referring to the union of one man and one woman. Also the same God that created life...and never did, nor would absolutely ever, grant the right to kill one's own child, in or out of the womb. If a Court decides to grant these rights, they are man made...not God-given, in my never-to-be-humble-opinion.

"Rape and murder are diffrent, those are cases where it is clear that other's rights have been infringed upon."

I had to comment on this. What if the person works for you...or is your family member? Would you have the right to rape or murder them because you have some degree of power over them? Isn't that the ultimate argument you make for abortion? Might makes right...you have power over that person so therefore you should have the authority to take their life if you so chose. Why aren't they granted those unaliable rights that you so ardently defend? We can argue about clusters of cells all we want, but what about 3 months along, 4, 5, or 6? Where's the line...since abortions are legal in all months at the moment (pending court decisions). Just something to think about.

The thing I have never understood about this is why people think it's their right to legislate their morality on other people. If you think abortion is wrong, don't have one as the old saying goes. It is not your right to tell me what I can or cannot do with what's in my body. I want to legislate on the legality of vasectomies. Those little sperm could become people, after all!

God forbid the Christian Scientists ever gain control and decide that, really, medicine isn't all it's cracked up to be. Let's make rulings about your right to go to the emergency room.

Also, reproductive rights are a much, much larger ball of wax than just abortion. Much of the informaition on women's reproductive health has been whoops! removed from public availability via the internet. Health care doesn't cover much of women's reproductive health costs. If you're so worried about healthy babies and healthy people, let's make sure women have availabe, affordable access to health care and birth control. My insurance currently doesn't cover birth control and in the past has not covered annual pelvic exams which screen for cancer.

Also, Dude, if you want to suggest that poor people in this country don't have it so bad, I suggest you try to get by on $8,000/year or less. Welfare in this country is in shambles and is worthless compared to other wealthy industrialized western nations.

Ugh, this is getting circular.

Again if you try use the argument "why people think it's their right to legislate their morality on other people" then you must argue for anarchy, because murder and rape are illegal because we have legislated morals upon other people. Period.

As for "Its in my body, I'll do as I please".. so there is no cutoff here? It is in your body 2 minutes before delivery, are you going to tell me this isn't a human being just because you can't see it? I'm not trying to tell you when human life begins, but there is definately a couple months there where the existance of a fully developed human is impossible to argue against. We deliver babies 2+ months before term every single day.

For a little change of pace, I'd like to hear some opinions on the Laci Peterson case. For those of you who need a quick update, a man in California is being charged for a double murder after killing his pregnant wife. The double murder is for killing the unborn child as well.

So.. should he be charged with a single murder or a double murder, and why?

As an athiest I find it extremly offenseive that God created rights. Where did rights come from before Christianity?

1st degree for the murder of the wife. No charge on the kid, cause it wasn't born.

"Fine, but you just have to understand that other Americans who value their rights, view this issue very differetly, and very much appreciate Justices Scalia and Thomas, and their traditional view of the constitution. If you truly want to be tolerant, you have to understand that people who are pro-life and pro traditional marriage are just as American as you are, and just because they don't agree that certain things should be "rights", they equally value the right to life, religios freedom, property rights, freedom of speech, even if their angles for understanding what these rights are is different from yours."

Yes I agree, they have the right to think that gay marriage and abortion are wrong, however they do not have the right to impose these ideas on other people. What do you mean by "traditional" view of the constitution?

you cant allow people to have "rights" that impose on the rights of others, at that point it is no longer a right but a form of oppression.

Personally, i dont understand how someone can say they have a right to decide what is right when it results in oppressing the freedoms of others. The right to heterosexual marriage only isnt a right, its a restriction. Like-wise with abortion being illegal.

I guess one could argue that if gay marriage were legal it would be effectively forcing those who oppose it to accept it, but there are a number of problems with that argument, the most critical being that no part of our nations laws call for anyone to accept the laws of the land, they are just the laws. I.E. Some may not agree with people having guns and local militias but its in the constitution just the same.

Of course, I may have completely missed your point Dude, if so I apologize. I just dont understand the concept of the "right" to limit others' rights.

Abortoin arguments are always circular, and there is never anything new on the table. I just wanted to voice my opinion.

Laci Peterson -- that's a tricky one. I belive his intent was to kill the baby as well, but putting people away because they really, really meant to do something sounds a little iffy to me. So single murder. I do believe that making it a crime to harm a fetus is the firs step to overturning Roe v. Wade. It's not a great leap to say that if you can be put in jail for harming the unborn then women who decide to terminate a pregnancy should be jailed.

Somewhere, Dude is rejoicing.

you cant allow people to have "rights" that impose on the rights of others, at that point it is no longer a right but a form of oppression.

You bring up a good point gizmo, however moving past the scope of legislature, it seems that the real issue is that many of us are at odds to define rights in the first place. If a person does not believe that abortion is a right, then that person is certainly not going to think that outlawing this practice is infringing on anyone's rights.

So here is my suggestion to us all: get out and do something for what you believe in. Right now you ladies have the right to an abortion, if you want to keep it you are going to have to do a lot more than just vote. No unstoppable government force is creeping up to take it away. That government is the one we have voted for, the one we have chosen to speak for us. If abortion becomes illegal, it is your fault for letting it happen. If you don't agree with it, then change it. Get out there and convince your neighbors to help you.

A few posts back someone said of Bush, "He is not my president." At first I agreed to that thought.. but you know what, he is our president ... but that doesn't change the fact that this is OUR country. We direct where this country goes. Anything that is done can be undone in time, and anything not done can be done in time.

I have a big problem with the idea that it's my fault if my rights are taken away. Blaming the victim is never a good idea, although, interestingly, here it is again applied to women. I have given money, I have protested, I have written letters and signed petitions. Short of quitting my job to work at Planned Parenthood (who I currently patronize for my annual exams and birth control despite the fact that I do have health insurance...tmi, perhaps, but I'm trying to make a point) I don't know what else I can do.

I didn't vote for these people. They don't represent my interests, and as we read in that NYT article, they don't represent the interests of the vast majority of the people that voted for them.

i do not have the time to read through all of these comments but ryan told me about this discussion last night and i wanted to say a few things...

I can easily say, "First, they took away the right for two people of the same sex to marry, and I did not speek out, because I was not a lesbian. Then, they took away women's right to choose, and I did not speek out, because I was not pregnant. . ." Where will it stop?

first, i completely agree with brette on this one. whether you support or oppose abortion is not as much of an issue as is the ability for more and more rights to be taken away from people with increasing severity.

second, i agree with ryan. if you've done all you can do to support a cause, then great. but maybe inspire more people to do so. enlightening people in your community, your neighbors, friends, strangers, etc...(i can only speak from experience with people's ignorance towards conservation from volunteering my time at the zoo -- enlightening people in even the smallest way may or may not make a difference...)

third, if you believe leaving the country will help you to escape your problems instead of dealing with them, fine. i'm on the sleater-kinney mailing list and found this post by a canadian appropriate:

"I live in Canada where we have the Parliamentary system. I think that having more than one party just makes it harder for things to get done. Plus, it also means that you only need 33% of the vote to win..."

Not only is it quite a process to get things moving through Parliament, but many complain about the Canadian Senate (which is appointed by the Prime Minister) as well:

From Encarta:
"Critics insist that the Senate has failed at carrying out its official duties. They say the Senate does not provide an effective voice for regional concerns because party loyalty has taken precedence. Critics also charge that the Senate has not acted as a chamber of sober second thought and a check on government because, as appointees chosen by the prime minister, senators have endorsed the government’s positions. Finally, critics say that the Senate has failed to protect the rights of minorities, again because the Senate generally follows the majority party’s position."

"I guess one could argue that if gay marriage were legal it would be effectively forcing those who oppose it to accept it, but there are a number of problems with that argument, the most critical being that no part of our nations laws call for anyone to accept the laws of the land, they are just the laws. I.E. Some may not agree with people having guns and local militias but its in the constitution just the same." -giz

That's fine, so marriage between a man and a woman is law in 49 out of 50 states, until courts decide otherwise, so accept that. It's not about a right to take away rights, it's just the law.

"They don't represent my interests, and as we read in that NYT article, they don't represent the interests of the vast majority of the people that voted for them." -Emily

I think that article and assertion is very insulting. I think farmers and rural Americans are independant people, and don't feel that the federal burocracy needs to be any larger. They also feel that higher taxes don't represent their interests. You can frame the argument as "tax cuts for the rich" all you want, but the reality is when the rubber hits the road in Congress, and in State Legislatures, Democrats as a party caucus are not known for their strong stance on tax cuts...for ANYONE. Regardless of their campaign stances, that is the undisputable truth.

"As an athiest I find it extremly offenseive that God created rights. Where did rights come from before Christianity?"

That's fine, you can be offended, and I actually understand. My point was a response to Emily's assertion that rights exists whether governments grant them or not. Since I agree, I was curious where Emily believes rights come from...and wanted to share my belief. I was and am still intrigued by what her answer to that question would be, since she is even in disagreement with John Kerry...who in the last debate made reference to "the rights that we afford people". If he is wrong, and rights are not granted from God OR government, where do they come from? It's a thought provoking question, I think.

"If a person does not believe that abortion is a right, then that person is certainly not going to think that outlawing this practice is infringing on anyone's rights."

Right on, brother. Ryan is right that some of the arguments are getting circular. They get so because when one person has a definition of "rights" burned into their psyche, it makes it easy to demonize the other for not seeing it the same way. Honestly, this discussion has been enlightening for me, since I had no idea that people truly and passionately believed in the rights of abortion and gay marriage as being "inalienable". I just thought it was a political argument used to advance the cause, since the thought is obviously almost unfathomable to me. Nonetheless, I have gained a valuable understanding of your beliefs, and I appreciate that. We will never agree, but if I can gain a level of understanding of arguments that sound to me like they are being broadcast from Jupiter...then maybe others can understand that reasonable people can be pro-life and against gay marriage, without being some sort of vicious tyrants that want to take people's rights away. I know many conservatives, and they are very good, decent and compassionate people. They view the left as mounting an assault on their country and it's heritage, and are shocked by it (much as I am by your arguments sometimes)...but they certainly don't view themselves as taking anyone's rights away. The sooner both sides can see the good in the other, the sooner we can reach some reasonable consensus on these difficult issues.

One thing that I don't understand is the common grouping of abortion rights with gay marriage. I suppose some of this has to do with views of the Christian right, but in my mind the two topics are not similar in the least bit.

I do feel that a ban on gay marriage would be an infringement on the rights of others. There are no victims in a gay marriage. A ban on gay marriage infringes upon the rights of others based soley on sexual preference.

People like to talk about the sanctity of marriage.. but where is the sanctity when over half of marriages fail? How about banning getting married more than once?.. that would do more for preserving the sanctity of marriage than a ban on gay marriages.

Points well taken, Ryan.

I do not favor no-fault divorce, and I think those laws have done terrible damage to the family by making it easy for couples to foresake thier vows.

last post!