[RjkVwPcV]

If Democrats are trying to change their tune as Coulter says here, they've hidden it well, at least from me. Perhaps because I never read the Post or the NYT? Last time I looked, leading Senate Democrats were castigating Samuel Alito because he didn't promise to vote to support abortion before the case has even appeared before him. That's like scolding a baseball umpire for not promising to make sure Team A will win the next ball game.

As I've said before, the imagined "right to abortion" is merely a smokescreen used by the leftists to determine which judges will twist the Constitution enough to permit the entire, unconstitutional Nanny-state agenda... of which abortion is only a small, equally-twisted part. Coulter seems to think there is a sea change starting to happen here. She may be right on the narrow issue of abortion... but if so, I predict the Democrats will merely shift to another equally unconstitutional issue, such as Federal authority to set workplace conditions and wages, or perhaps Federal authority to run retirement programs, to use as a litmus test.

There is no fundamental sea change going on in the Democrat party. They remain dedicated to the proposition that all men are created UNequal - and only massive government largesse can redress the balance, aided by discriminatory laws. With the bill handed to "the rich", of course, who surely have nothing better to do with their money.

------------------------------------------------

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/art...11905&o=ANN001

Abortion Stops a Bleeding Heart

by Ann Coulter
Posted Jan 25, 2006

The Democrats are trying to "reframe" their message to make people think they believe abortion is wrong. I think this is going to be a hard sell if they plan to continue ferociously defending abortion-on-demand right up until the moment the baby's head is through the birth canal.

But both The New York Times and The Washington Post have recently run op-eds by liberals calling for Democrats to abandon their single-minded devotion to Roe v. Wade.

In the Post, Richard Cohen said it was time for liberals to "untether abortion rights from Roe." Cohen admitted that conservatives (and "some liberals," he claimed implausibly) have a point when they say abortion ought to be decided by the states. This is another way of saying abortion is not a constitutional right. Kate Michelman: Call your abortion mill!

In The New York Times, William Saletan gently counseled feminists that it was time to admit: "It's bad to kill a fetus." And they say liberals have no values!

Even Jimmy Carter, the Democrats' idea of an Evangelical Christian, has allowed that "I don't believe that Christ would approve of abortions." (Though Carter added that Christ would approve of abortion if "the mother's life or health was seriously endangered or the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest" -- or if Jesus really, really needed the feminists to vote for him.)

It's been a long time coming, but the Democrats are finally throwing the NARAL ladies off the boat.

One by one, the Democratic Party keeps having to abandon all the insane positions that have made it the funny, silly party we've come to know and love.

The gun control fanatics were thrown overboard after President Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress passed the 1994 crime bill that banned so-called "assault weapons" -- i.e., otherwise completely legal semiautomatic weapons that looked scary to Dianne Feinstein.

As a result, the Democrats lost Congress for the first time in 40 years and lost the South forever. When is the last time you heard a Democrat use the words "gun control"?

In 1995, the new Republican Congress sent a welfare reform bill to Clinton, a man who had campaigned on "mend it, don't end it" and then refused to do anything about it.

Not one Democrat resigned from the Clinton administration when Clinton turned out to be molesting the help and committing lots of felonies. But a whole slew of them resigned to protest Clinton's signing the Republicans' welfare reform bill.

You never hear a peep out of Democrats anymore about restoring government welfare programs to their former glory.

Now it's the abortion ladies' turn.

As Saletan informed feminists in his Times column:

"You can tell yourself that the pro-choice majority stayed home in the last election, or that they voted on other issues, or that Democrats botched the debate. But those excuses are getting tired. Sixteen years ago, as the behavior of voters and politicians showed, abortion was clearly a winning issue for you. Now it isn't. You have a problem."

It's finally happened: Abortion stopped a bleeding heart.

I guess Sandra Day O'Connor's demand that "the contending sides" on abortion "end their national division" and accept the court's diktat in Roe didn't work out for her.

As Abraham Lincoln said of another moral blight on the nation supported by Democrats: You can "repeal the Declaration of Independence -- repeal all past history -- you still cannot repeal human nature. It will still be the abundance of man's heart, that slavery extension is wrong; and out of the abundance of his heart, his mouth will continue to speak."

Or, as Justice Antonin Scalia said, the court's refusal to overrule the lawless Roe decision would not stand because of "the twin facts that the American people love democracy and the American people are not fools."

With even liberals backing away from Roe, apparently the last group of people on Earth to realize the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence is a catastrophe is going to be the Supreme Court.

------------------------------

(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[Lebybynctisee]

Abortion is every woman's right, and moral issues enshrined in law are an abomination.

http://capitalism.org/faq/abortion.htm
Abortion is pro-life; anti-abortion is anti-life

What is abortion?

Abortion is the removal of a fetus from the body of its host (a pregnant woman) which typically results in the death of the fetus.
What is the essential issue concerning abortion?

The essential question concerning abortion is: does the fetus have an inalienable right to be in the body of its' host against the host's will?
Doesn't a fetus have a right to be in the womb of its host?

A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is only in there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time. Rights are not permissions; permissions are not rights. This permission is given by the woman, because it is her body -- and not the fetus's body, and certainly not the government's body.

To give a fetus "rights" superior to a pregnant woman is to eradicate the woman's right to her body. The principle here is: any right that contradicts the right of another cannot be a right, as rights form an integrated whole. Contrary to the opinion of anti-lifers (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig.
Why is abortion not murder?

Murder is the taking of the life of another human being through the initiation of physical force. Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not a human being -- it is a potential human being, i.e. it is part of the woman. The concept murder only applies to the initiation of physical force used to destroy an actual human being, i.e., such as when "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics.
Isn't the fetus "life", and therefore has a right to life?

You are equivocating on the term "life" which is a concept that includes everything that is living. Dogs are "life" but they do not have rights. What about ants? So are trees "life", yet they do not have rights (contrary to the mouthing of man-hating environmentalists). Rights only apply to human beings, and not to human tissue.

Rights apply to human beings, because only human beings survive by the use of reason (unlike dogs, trees, ants -- and fetuses). Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings -- and not parts of beings -- survive by reason. Please keep in mind what a right is: a right is a moral sanction for freedom of action in a social context. A fetus has no rights, as it does not need freedom to take any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its host. The only action it must take is nothing, i.e., wait for itself to develop using the sustenance provided by its host.
What is the capitalist view on abortion?

Given the above, under capitalism abortion is an inalienable right. Any one who advocates the outlawing of abortion -- like Steve Forbes -- is an enemy of individual rights, and thus of capitalism.
Do children have no rights?

Children, unlike fetuses, do have rights. A new born child, unlike a fetus, is a physically separate entity. A child is an actual human being, with a capability to reason, and thus a child has the same right to life as any adult. However, the application of this right differs in practice from that of an adult, as a child's conceptual faculty is not fully developed. That is why a six year old does not have the right to choose to enter into a sexual relationship -- and an adult does.

[Maypeevophy]

Abortion is every woman's right, and moral issues enshrined in law are an abomination.

http://capitalism.org/faq/abortion.htm

Sad thing is... most liberals and Democrats give far more value to the life of a baby seal, or an ant, then they do to a pre-born child.

Something is terribly out of whack here.

[Scfdglkn]

Sad thing is... most liberals and Democrats give far more value to the life of a baby seal, or an ant, then they do to a pre-born child.

Something is terribly out of whack here.

The life of a baby seal or an ant has no value.

[InsManKV]

The life of a baby seal or an ant has no value.

I dunno, baby seals are pretty tasty man.

[2puO4Rhf]

I dunno, baby seals are pretty tasty man.

Eating them live? I dunno, I preferred a light grill myself.

[JonDopl]

You gotta go for the shock value of eating them alive, it really puts your opponents off balance.

[chuecalovers]

True that. Watch closely, if it gives them a hard-on they could potentially be converted.

[Mereebirl]

What an excellent explanation how anti-lifers are wrong.

[Heaneisismich]

And how delicious baby seals are.

Can't forget that.

[yovbQVpD]

The nice thing about this whole arguement is that the ones most likely to have abortions are liberals, as conservatives believe in life. Children of liberals are most likely to take on the values of the parents, liberal. Therefore it only stands to reason that liberals are aborting themselves out of existence.

[blogforloversxx]

The nice thing about this whole arguement is that the ones most likely to have abortions are liberals, as conservatives believe in life. Children of liberals are most likely to take on the values of the parents, liberal. Therefore it only stands to reason that liberals are aborting themselves out of existence.

There are some pretty startling statistics coming out of a deeper study into the "Roe Effect".

[Yarmark]

The nice thing about this whole arguement is that the ones most likely to have abortions are liberals, as conservatives believe in life. Children of liberals are most likely to take on the values of the parents, liberal. Therefore it only stands to reason that liberals are aborting themselves out of existence.

Yeah, so? I'm not seeing a problem with that.

At all. If anything, its another excellent argument for legalized abortion.

[mikapoq]

As another liberal boondoggle comes back to bite them in the ass. And they still don't learn.

[cepAceryTem]

It reminds me of a few years back, there was a microburst by Steamboat that blew thousands of pine trees down. A logging company offered to come in and remove them and even pay for them. The enviros went ballistic and stopped the greedy corporation from cleaning up the area. It is now being decimated by pine beetles.

[Idonnaink]

The nice thing about this whole arguement is that the ones most likely to have abortions are liberals, as conservatives believe in life. Children of liberals are most likely to take on the values of the parents, liberal. Therefore it only stands to reason that liberals are aborting themselves out of existence.

In general, abortion is already discouraged by the laws of nature and evolution.

[deandrecooke]

Don't try to explain that to a liberal.

[rouletteroulette]

Sad thing is... most liberals and Democrats give far more value to the life of a baby seal, or an ant, then they do to a pre-born child.

Something is terribly out of whack here.

Indeed. I sense a fallacious appeal to emotion with no substance or rational meaning. Something is quite out of whack.

[tramdoctorsss]

Indeed. I sense a fallacious appeal to emotion with no substance or rational meaning. Something is quite out of whack.

Hey TJ.



(Even if we're ever-arguing, DGT, I have to give props where they are due. Also, likening you to a rolling SUV is fun.)

[AgindyMinnife]

It reminds me of a few years back, there was a microburst by Steamboat that blew thousands of pine trees down. A logging company offered to come in and remove them and even pay for them. The enviros went ballistic and stopped the greedy corporation from cleaning up the area. It is now being decimated by pine beetles.

Two points.

First, If you are speaking of the USSR microburst, that happened more than a FEW years ago and I didn't know it was considered a mircoburst, rather an exploding meteorit of minioce ball. Of that isn't what you mean, then what, and ---"Steamboat"?????

Second, I've come this far on the thread and do not understand the title. or for that matter what this has to do with "Stopping a bleading HEART" It seems more to me to be a "Play with words, and a rather stupd idea that abortion will annilate the Pro-choicepeople (Perhaps just wishful thinking )