A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore

Hee hee!

Of course, then Republicans came to power, and victory speeches were all about how the nation had narrowly dodged a bullet by not electing the Al-Queda candidates, how it was clearly God's divine will than a Republican won the race, and it was the dawn of an enduring epoch of Republican control of all three branches of government.I actually think this is a refreshing change. I don't see that Michael Moore is under any obligation to win gracefully; he's a private citizen not a public candidate. I think he's showing a lot more restraint than conservative pundits did in the past.

How? By magic? Or did you, like basically every abortion foe, forget once again that the unborn "child" you're so concerned about resides inside a woman who has rights?We'll stick up for her. If she wants to stay pregnant, we'll help her do that. I don't understand what scenario you imagine where your unborn "child" is in danger but she is not.

There's no such thing as an "unborn child." And no human being has the right to demand free tenancy inside another, unwilling human being.But you still haven't answered the question. You seem to think that your "unborn child" is at risk from... what, exactly? Some attacker lunging at it with a knife? How would that not be a crime against the mother, too? Unless you think liberals aren't interested in prosecuting assault against women? (That would be the position of conservatives, BTW, as evidenced by the conservative punditry's reaction to the Duke rape case.)No, of course not. What you want is the government to come down on the side of forced birth; you believe that your lack of a uterus is a disability that the government has an obligation to overcome by forcing a woman to bear your child. That's pretty gross.

I agree, which is why no part of my post is about that. It isn't. It's only considered murder in a few states, and only in those states to provide a future justification for ending abortion. Arguing from the existence of those laws is circular reasoning, because those laws were passed only to allow you to argue from them. They serve no other purpose.

A "part" of your wife? Like, the functionality of her uterus is all you care about? For you to draw a distinction between harm to your wife and harm to your wife's reproductive organs is pretty sick, I think. But it proves what I've been saying all along - the only interest you have in your wife is her role, which you believe the government should give you the right to demand, in producing your progeny.And if your wife went off and had an abortion, because she realized that she's nothing but a baby machine to you? What then? Should she go to jail, too?

As I understand, that's one of the immediate priorities for next years Democratic congress.Sounds like a good idea to me.

I think, for many voters (like me), that's what they thought they were getting when they voted Republican (in 2000, at least). Most people saw the change in spending as a result of the election of a Republican congress, and concluded from that "Republicans are good on spending."Little did they realize, of course, that the Republican budget plan was "spend even more, only spend it on different stuff." Our bad, I guess.

You put up with a lot more than I think I would be capable of. (And thanks for all the interesting info about horses.)