It was a joke, but the guy responding below you doesn't agree with that point about feelings and direct affect.

Existed? I don't see how nominating a half-white tyro on purely cosmetic grounds is anything to be proud of. You, Michelle and Dinesh D'souza might disagree, but whatever.

According to a small majority of her political party, though, being First Lady is qualifications for president. Considering where the last woman to be in her shoes rode the position she had just attained, she does bear a little scrutiny. Bristol Palin wasn't writing any legislation either.

I don't know, or give a damn, what the debate is. Abortion has nothing more to do with birth control, than domestic violence has to do with household finances. Some might point to one as a cause of the other, but it is irrelevant. Your lack of access to birth control does not justify murdering a child to evade the incumbent responsibilities of parenthood, under any circumstances, whether you are too poor or stupid to obtain it, or the same legislators and executives who outlawed your contraceptives are also looking to prohibit those murders. Preventing abortion is not justification for birth control, not because of the morality of birth control, but because abortion is flat out wrong, and you do not negotiate murder victims as bargaining chips.


No, it's not. The justifications for abortion are roughly akin to those for baby-shaking, because of the same outcome. It does not matter how tragic the circumstances of the conception or the mother's life, it simply does not justify the death of the child.

We need that about as much as we need a federal murder statute. IMO, this is only playing to the useful idiots.

Aborting a baby to save the mother's life is no different than human organ harvesting. If the kid bites it as a side effect of a necessary medical procedure, that's one thing. Casual termination to make the doctor's job more easy... something else. And as I said, the medical necessity excuse, by the count of the special interest group speaking for the practitioners, would kill a few hundred a year. As opposed to more than a million. The debate is how many millions of dead are lost behind the smokescreen of those 600 women, some of whom are counted because a psychiatrist diagnosed an unwanted pregnancy as a source of depression or suicidal tendencies?

Who said she didn't? The failure of her near-adult daughter to follow through on what her mother preached is not on her. Clearly, she was not practicing the abstinence her mother preached, but for all we know, there was a broken rubber or missed pill involved. Not to mention, the only way you could really pin hypocrisy on them would have been if Palin had aborted Tric or whatever the Downs kid's name is, or Bristol had been caught having an abortion. There is certainly no evidence that she was encouraging Bristol to have premarital sex or endorsing her behavior. Family values in no way includes throwing your daughter under the bus or ducking the resulting children or behaving in the way left-wingers seem to expect wealthy or powerful families to behave from what they depict on the TV shows and movies they make.

Why not? Heroism yesterday does not preclude cowardice tomorrow. Ever hear of a guy called Benedict Arnold? And using the phrase "cut and run" is in no way an accusation of cowardice. The literal meaning of the phrase suggests a rational or calculated desire to minimize costs or losses. Given that Duckworth has suffered losses, it might actually be very pertinent. Her own suffering could be blinding her to the objective issues a Congressman is supposed to be considering.

By the way, it strikes me that Duckworth might stand some scrutiny. I mean, she volunteered for the military. Then, when she gets hurt, all of a sudden, it's time to bail? These johnny-come-latelies to the anti-war position are, in their way, more annoying than the "chicken hawks" who at least have consistency in their positions.

I should have known there was something wrong with her. Sure, let's get the federal government involved in a highly personal process, where the outcome is largely determined by familial factors before the kid ever steps foot in a school. Education is undertaken by teacher, child and parent, and of those three, the one the government has the most access to, has the least effect on the outcome. But no, let's throw money at the problem, rather than let the parents, the parties most familiar with the kids in question, and with the greatest investment in their welfare, make the decisions unburdened by school taxes or the money-chasing games of the state funding racket. But that's liberals for you - the only decisions they trust parents to make is whether or not to abort the kid.

She is more compromised on this issue than any connections Bush and Cheney had to Big Oil.

I suppose throwing other people's money at them lets her sleep at night with her endorsement of killing them.

I'll give a damn about their feelings when someone polls the kids they want to kill.
Here's hoping.

Infanticide is not a civil right. Killing killers is undeniably effective prevention.