<p>P.S. I’m sorry for taking this thread so far afield! We just touched on my hot-button topic. I’ll try to restrain myself from further outbursts. ;)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I appreciate your consistency, sjmom.</p>
<p>
My argument holds despite your objections, woman. So we do not value life unless it can survive outside the womb? So I’m assuming that you reject any and all late-term abortions - beyond, say, 20 weeks? A ten year old child would not survive long without the support of parents or society - few 10-year-olds, left to wander in the woods, would not shortly die. As parents are the shield from this death, are they allowed to impose death?</p>
<p>You asked how something can be intellectually consistent. Start with a premise that you happen to not agree with (which is understandable and valid), and voila! the logic makes sense. Considering that we DO punish people who inflict harm on a woman with the intent of killing her fetus, my argument holds water: your (wrongly) imposed requirement of survival outside the womb is not even necessary in our own laws. Imagine a man who desperately wants a child and a woman who aborts that child because it will ruin her figure to have it, or it’s socially undesirable to be pregnant and to give the baby up for adoption. No harm? </p>
<p>I understand that you don’t like the argument, but it is a valid and reasonable argument. You need not agree with the premise of it, but your disagreement with a premise that, well, most of society agrees with does not make it invalid. Your consent is no measure of validity, intellectually honesty, or logic. Clear?</p>
<p>Kluge - I AM intellectually honest. If I made an error, please point that out. There was a mention of “jailing” women who have abortions, although abortion laws are aimed at abortionists. Much like Sweden’s prostitution laws, the punishment is assymetrical. If anyone is being intellectually dishonest, it’s Opie, but, as she happens to agree with you, you don’t level that unfounded charge against her. Please do not level it against me. As a lawyer, you should at least know that you don’t get to yell and scream about something being wrong without offering evidence to the contrary. Simply put, Opie’s premise was wrong. I pointed that out. Intellectual honesty reigns.</p>
<p>Your post # 956 is what I was trying to say earlier… who do you feel worse for? For one side, inconvenience or pain is no justification for killing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/[/url]”>http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/</a></p>
<p>More from the same source:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>'I understand that you don’t like the argument"</p>
<p>NO I really don’t care about the arguement as long as someone has a choice. They can certainly choose not to have something done can’t they? I don’t have to like their choice, but I refuse to let people like yourself force your way or no way on the population. I will fight for that right to say yes or no. I’ll respect your pov when you allow others theirs. I’ll respect a person’s private choice they make, it’s their business. </p>
<p>I’ve neither talked someone into or out of an abortion, it’s simply not my business. Allowing for free choice, is.</p>
<p>Hey kluge: If only we homophobes are intent on inserting the gay angle into this story, why is there news on David Corn’s (of the Nation magazine - a left-wing pubilcation) website of a “list” of gay Repubicans which is presently being circulated for the purpose of causing the cornerstone of the Republican party (in their warped worldview)–fundamentalist Christians–to sit out the election? Nice stuff. </p>
<p>As for your other slur on me, keep in mind that 16 is the age of consent in D.C. Worked for Studds.</p>
<p>Saying “sounds” like a piece of fiction is not the same as saying it IS fiction. Here’s D’s version of the interview</p>
<p>CNN: PAGE LAWYER DOES NOT RULE ‘IN OR OUT’ PRANK CLAIM… DEVELOPING… Former congressional page Jordan Edmund’s lawyer Stephen Jones… BLITZER: He will join us live in the next hour. What are you hearing, Brian, about some of these Internet suggestions, some Republicans suggesting this whole thing is a prank, a hoax and there is no there, there. </p>
<p>CNN REPORTER: "We asked him about that item in the DRUDGE REPORT. He said very clearly he cannot rule that in, he cannot rule that out. He says he is not saying it was not a prank but later in the interview, CNN pressed him on that. He said that he – he does not read the DRUDGE REPORT, not part of his regular reading and, quote, it sounds like a piece of fiction…</p>
<p>BLITZER: He says the DRUDGE REPORT item sounds like a piece of fiction? </p>
<p>CNN REPORTER: He did say that, but important to note he says he is not ruling it in or out.</p>
<p>a bit of clarification of the reynolds “pardon”</p>
<p>this is an editoria from the Chicago Tribune back in the day:</p>
<p>Mel Reynolds, elected in 1992 after knocking off 2nd District incumbent Gus Savage, was convicted on state charges related to his sexual relationship with a teenage girl, and then on federal charges of bank and campaign fraud. He’s been locked up since October, 1995, first doing his state time and then going to federal prison to serve an unusually harsh 61/2-year sentence that, if nothing is done, will keep him behind bars until March, 2003 – leaving his wife and three young children to fend for themselves.</p>
<p>Reynolds was guilty of serious violations of the law that warranted punishment. But his federal sentence – more than quadruple that given to Rostenkowski–was plainly disproportionate. Reynolds has acknowledged his errors. Clinton should commute his sentence.</p>
<p>Dan Rostenkowski, who is already a free man and didn’t much need the president’s mercy, got it Friday just in time for Christmas. Mel Reynolds, who is about to mark his sixth yuletide in prison, is still waiting.</p>
<hr>
<p>from the department of justice;</p>
<p>REYNOLDS, Melvin J. Bank fraud; wire fraud; making false statements to a financial institution; conspiracy to defraud the Federal Election Commission; false statements to a federal official N. D. Ill.; July 15, 1997; 78 months’ imprisonment, five years’ supervised release, $20,000 in restitution Commute remainder of prison sentence to period of equal length to be served in a community corrections center, on condition of compliance with rules, leaving intact and in effect the remaining provisions</p>
<p>(he served his time for the child charges_its a fine legal point, to be sure, but might as well have our facts rights- and since many here are concerned about the legal points, might as well get them correct- we are not talking ethics or morals- but what was leagally done)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_9_99/ai_70696215[/url]”>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_9_99/ai_70696215</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://mesh.medill.northwestern.edu/mnschicago/archives/2001/01/excongressman_r.html[/url]”>http://mesh.medill.northwestern.edu/mnschicago/archives/2001/01/excongressman_r.html</a></p>
<p>Reynolds was a criminal, he was tried and convicted as it should have been.</p>
<p>He served his sentence, as he should have for the sex crime…don’t know enough to judge if the rest of the crimes he commited warranted the sentence, so will look further</p>
<p>as an aside, commuting sentences for “white collar” crimes- most Presidents do it- rightly or wrongly</p>
<p>as for “prank” are you saying the foley did NOT participate in any of the IM’s?</p>
<p>There is a big difference between sending nasty IM’s and actual statutory rape.</p>
<p>so what is the prank part…that they boys on the other side of the conversation where “faking” being “into” Foley? that was the prank-leading Foley on, and he took the bait?</p>
<p>and somehow that is supposed to let Foley off the hook?</p>
<p>okey dokey</p>
<p>That would be it. Obviously he was not in on the joke. </p>
<p>NPR had on a woman who was a paige back in the 70’s. She said several of them regularly smoked pot with some members and had affairs with congressmen or staff members.</p>
<p>so, if it was a prank or not…does that let foley off the hook</p>
<p>that was wrong in the 70s, yes it was…and if she did, hope she names names…</p>
<p>I like barrons logic, if bad was done in the past, its okay now…cooooolll</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is just ludicrous. I always thought it said a lot for CT presumably littered with east coast liberal types that they were happy to keep sending back a relatively conservative guy year after year. This year the Democrats in the state decided he didn’t represent them any more. So what? </p>
<p>That said, I only want the Democrat’s tent to be big enough to get elected. ;)</p>
<p>Sick and tired of the hypocrisy here: Aries, SJMom and HH: You of course are so “pro-life” that you have yourself personally adopted unwanted and abused children. Right? Right? Or are you just one more example of the Santimonious Right who preaches without action. (What are the names of your foster kids?)</p>
<p>lots of tacky and immoral happenedin the 70s</p>
<p>these days, well, we are supposed to have a better watch, and for the man who was in charge of the committee having to do with internet child safety, etc., I would just hope for better- new techonolgy, new laws- oh his own making</p>
<p>I am pro-living, for those here- not to concerned about the afterlife, and don’t think a glob of cells is a being</p>
<p>fap: I’m not in on this abortion debate. :)</p>
<p>I do love David Corn’s blog though. He says: “Let’s be clear this is not about homosexuality…” and then goes on to support the idea of “The List”, the outing of gay Republicans in D.C. to right wing religious groups, repeatedly saying “this could be ugly.” No kidding. Foley resigned the second the EMAILS were released, and the Democrats have fueled this entire thing for political reasons; most especially the gay part. It will backfire on them; maybe too late for the elections but it will backfire nonetheless, I think.</p>
<p>farawayplaces, your response is what’s called hyperbole. Have you personally performed an abortion? As I mentioned earlier, we HAVE donated money to groups that have organized programs to help women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy. There’s no hypocrisy when one supports an opinion with action – it doesn’t have to be the very limited action that you feel free to dictate. This is an opinion forum, and Aries, HH and I have expressed an opinion, without personalizing it or insulting other posters. You have just launched an unnecessary attack on our personal integrity and morals. How dare you! By the way, your post seems typical of the pro-abortion movement to me.</p>
<p>Opie, I can’t say it’s O.K. for someone to commit a murder, as long as they don’t think it’s wrong. It’s not enough for me to just say, “Well, I won’t have an abortion but you go ahead.” I believe it is wrong, and I’ll continue to think so for the rest of my life. I will vote for candidates who agree with that point of view and continue to support programs that help women in need – that’s all I can do</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom, did you think your daughters were a blob of cells when you were about seven months pregnant? Didn’t you think of them as babies? </p>
<p>I can understand a little how men and women who aren’t parents don’t have the visceral opposition to abortion that I have. But I’ll never understand how anyone who has given birth or fathered a child can think of that fetus as a clump of cells.</p>
<p>I remember when I first discovered I was expecting S1. I could only have been about five weeks pregnant, but I looked at images of babies in utero. I could see an embryo heart and neural tube. I could see when fingers and toes developed. At every stage after the blastocyst, it looked like a baby to me.</p>