Powered by TypePad

« I'm Going To Agree With Paul Krugman (Eventually) | Main | The Problem With Winning »

January 25, 2005


Rob Read

Forcing women to allow an unwanted child to parasite upon her body is the ultimate in socialism.

Paul Zrimsek

It's a slippery slope, too. Let the government force women to bring those parasites to term, and the next thing you know it'll be making them provide the tiny second-handers and whim-worshippers with food and shelter once they're born.


...the ultimate in socialism.

Where did China's "one child" policy finish in the rankings?

Aodhan Hoffman

Changing hearts, not changing laws, is one of the core ingredients of the American experiment. I applaud the President for pointing out that the debate over ideas is at least as important as the debate over law.


It will be interesting to see if the MSM ever confronts HRC over her various postures regarding issues as abortion.

On the other hand, never mind. It'll never happen.

Mr. Read raises an interesting point regarding socialism, word usage and visual imagery.

Was the unwanted child a result of unwanted sex? No? For choices have consequences, thus triggering responsibility for such. Perhaps forced sterilization is the answer to irresponsible choices.

Jack Tanner

'It will be interesting to see if the MSM ever confronts HRC over her various postures regarding issues as abortion.'

I see the future:

'Mrs. Clinton took a brave stand embracing life in the way that all progressives do. Her groundbreaking courage blah, blah, blah........'



Joe Mealyus

Is there a connection between the "heriditary meritocracy" item (right now at the top of JOM) and this one? Because it seems to me that a disproportionate amount of support for (at least the status quo on) abortion comes from people (including many who vote Republican) who don't want an unwanted pregnancy to get in the way of their daughters' education....


Yeah, because pregnancy is just =so= distracting (from someone who took and aced an actuarial exam 2 weeks before giving birth). I find it interesting to hear such high-flown rhetoric from people who have never borne any children.

Harry Arthur


Does the "parasite" have the human right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" at some point? If so, how old must the "parasite" be to acquire these God-given rights?

What you describe is not socialism, it is "we the people" acting on behalf of a weak person in defense of its right not to be killed by a stronger person. Are the handicapped and elderly also "parasites?" If not, why not? What is the level of inconvenience that justifies depriving a human of their life without just cause? At least you recognized that the child is a separate human, avoiding the factually incorrect "my body, my choice" argument. Just like to know where your argument leads.

I would submit that the whole abortion issue resides in the determination of when the child is in fact a human. At that point, I'd say we have to recognize its right to live regardless of the inconvenience to the mother.


I think that's one thing President Bush says that isn't just BS. It's just common sense. Look at how a decision by judicial fiat divided the country. I don't think we Americans like to have our betters tell us how to think. That's why we have elections. For an object lesson in how it works to harangue, lecture and demand that people agree with you or they're stupid or evil, see the last few eletions.

As for Hillary, I see many GOP and 527 ads showing her taking two or more sides of any number of issues for different groups.
Bill had a compliant press, Hillary has Foxnews, the Internet and 527s.

The comments to this entry are closed.