Seriously, this seems to some sort of psychological blindspot. How sensitive a topic is this for you? I would think your bullshit detector would have picked up on some obvious flaws here.

Ah, yes. The old standard whereby Republicans' off-the-cuff comments are held to the standard of precisely composed formal policy statements. Oh, wait. Joel here. Michelle Obama pretty much writes off all accomplishments of the USA's history next to the nomination of a callow half-white hustler, and it's all "leave the poor woman alone, she's just a simple housewife who had no idea anyone records things at presidential nominating conventions," but every little error or slip of the tongue by the party running against the Obama-Biden gaffe machine, gets a whole hyperbolic post from Joel.

If we could knock the abortion numbers down to 600 a year, the whole pro-Life movement would be thrilled. All this nonsensical, and behind-the-cycle declaration, by a special interest group no less (would the counter-arguments of an oil company get into the 4th paragraph of an article covering an environmentalist congressman's diatribe against that industry? Of course not. You can slander the oil industry, which is pretty much an indispensible aspect of our society & its technology, until the cows come home and no one cares, but when someone exaggerates even slightly in an exasperated discussion of the lives of human beings, it's time for torches and pitchforks) does, is highlight how much of a bullshit smokescreen the "medical necessity" argument really is!

In the name of about 600 cases a year, we have to empower skanks, tramps and modern-day Medeas to indulge their selfishness and degeneracy through the murder of their own offspring, with five times as many abortions per DAY as medical necessity requires a year.

By the admissions of a group whose membership PROFITS from the practice of abortion, less than .06% of abortions are medically necessary to save the mother's life. For all intents and purposes, Walsh is right.

"can become" Not always is.

Several a year. Not, everytime some low-life bitch decides fitting into her outfit AND indulging her basest impulses is a higher priority than taking a modicum of responsibility for her actions. Which happens over a thousand times as often.

Some people take issue with doctors who profit off the view of a human life as cosmetic inconvenience.

And I am hardly flabbergasted that a person with a vested financial interest and political alignment is making an argument from authority that Walsh is wrong.


And how many studies are cited and quoted in this article? Zero. Just excerpts of statements from physicians with a vested interest in denying the human factor in abortion.

And what the fuck does that have to do with anything? If she doesn't want to be criticized using commonplace expressions that remind her of the injuries she took at the dangerous job she volunteered for, then maybe she should NOT RUN FOR CONGRESS (a concept no one has a problem with when it comes to making insinuations about the personal lives of Sarah Palin's children). Once you enter the arena, you can't expect people to give way to you on common courtesy, especially on something as important as the legislature of the most powerful country in the world. A political office is not a seat on the bus - you don't get one just by showing up with a sob story.

And why do you like her? What does she have that makes her worthy of your affections and support, aside from possibly the status that gives you the illusion of moral high ground in lambasting anyone insenstive enough to believe that her political positions make her a bad choice for Congress? That's really all you are saying here - You're willing to jump on anything her opponent says or does because you think her injuries give her some sort of blanket immunity from criticism.

Not to mention, only a liberal would think admiting his affection for someone or something does anything to his argument beyond undermine its pretense at rational analysis and transform it into a partisan screed. Only a liberal would cite his affection for a politician and her handicapped status as if either were some sort of credential on his or her part.

Honestly, if making effective exceptions endangers the whole cause, those 600 women are a small price to pay for the million+ lives that a non-excepted ban would protect.

Except the responsible ones simply want to pull back the blatantly unjudicial Roe v Wade and fight this out state by state, or even put it to a vote. This is what we've only been saying for years. The absolute refusal to allow any sort of popular voice into the process is why people occasionally cap the odd abortionist, which really only started when Republican nominee Sandra Day O'Conner made it clear that due process would not get us anywhere.