Matthews said, "I don't hear Democrats talk ... about the need to reduce the number of abortions," but they do, often, and on his show
SUMMARY: On Hardball, Chris Matthews asserted, "I don't hear Democrats talk ... about the need to reduce the number of abortions." He continued: "[Y]ou don't hear them talking a lot about the need for education, for much fewer, maybe enormously fewer, unwanted pregnancies, which is the reason people get abortions." In fact, Sen. Barack Obama said in April, "[W]e should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion."
On the June 12 edition of his MSNBC show, Chris Matthews asserted, "I don't hear Democrats talk ... about the need to reduce the number of abortions." He continued: "They talk about the rights issue, the constitutional question of Roe v. Wade, but you don't hear them talking a lot about the need for education, for much fewer, maybe enormously fewer, unwanted pregnancies, which is the reason people get abortions." In fact, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chairman Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY) -- have all said that the United States should work to reduce the number of abortions through education and access to contraception.
Matthews made his comment after Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said: "I think women and men have the same concern about where this country is going and struggling from paycheck to paycheck. When it comes to more basic issues, issues of privacy, certainly it means a lot to all of us. And it means a lot to women in this country. I think Barack Obama's position on the issue of choice is one that most Americans agree with. He wants to try to downplay and discourage the number of abortions in this country, to have more family planning, to avoid unplanned pregnancies."
At a Compassion Forum at Messiah College on April 13, Obama said, "[W]e can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion," and, "I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there." Obama's campaign addresses the issue on its website also; under the headline, "Preventing Unwanted Pregnancy," it reads: "Barack Obama is an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies."
As Media Matters for America documented when U.S. News & World Report contributing editor Gloria Borger described Clinton's assertion that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare" as a "transparent" effort to recover the so-called "values vote," Clinton has long expressed that position. Additionally, in a March 6, 2005, address, Clinton asserted:
CLINTON: Practically speaking, making it harder for women to get information, counseling and family planning services is a counterproductive policy. It does nothing to reduce abortion; in fact, it does just the opposite. Without access to contraception and family planning services, there will be more unwanted pregnancies. And without access to adequate medical care, many women will die undergoing unsafe abortions.
There is no reason why governments cannot help educate women and assist them with their health care needs. It is the most effective way both to reduce abortions and improve the health and well-being of women and their families.
In a speech to the New York State Family Planning Providers in January 2005, Clinton also pointed to the need for "comprehensive education and accurate information" in order to try to "reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions." Additionally, during a forum for presidential candidates on the June 4 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Clinton was asked if she "could see [her]self, with millions of voters in the pro-life camp, creating a common ground with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortions to zero." She responded: "Yes. Yes. And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And by rare, I mean rare." Further, at the Messiah College Compassion Forum, Clinton asserted, "I think abortion should remain legal -- but it needs to be safe and rare."
In Positively American (Rodale Books, January 2007), Schumer lays out the goal to "reduce abortions by 50%." The website associated with the book describes the following steps to achieve that goal:
Ensure real and age-appropriate sex education in public schools, including education on abstinence and contraception.
Make contraceptives more available.
Increase funding for federal family planning programs (Title X).
Create a national media campaign to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
On the October 5, 2005, edition of Hardball, Dean said to Matthews, "I think we ought to have the smallest number of abortions as possible." Dean continued: "You know, abortions have gone up since George Bush has been president. I think we ought to reduce abortions to the smallest number possible. But I don't think you do it by taking away the right of women to make up their own mind about the way their lives are going to be shaped."
On the December 29, 2004, edition of Hardball, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said to guest host and NBC News foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell: "Well, I think what we've got to look for is common ground on abortion as a party. And there is common ground between pro-life Democrats and Democrats who are pro-choice. And the common ground is, we all want to see the number of abortions reduced. And there are plenty of ways to do that, with sex education, sex education on the preventative side, with making prevention tools available for young people, by speeding up the process of adoption, by making adoption easier in this country."
On the January 2, 2003, edition of Hardball, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America Kate Michelman, a supporter of Sen. John Edwards' 2008 presidential primary campaign who later endorsed Obama, said to guest host Mike Barnicle: "What I would say to the president is that perhaps what he should concentrate on is creating a nation where we focus on making abortion less necessary, not illegal, not more difficult, but less necessary by expanding access to family planning, by including funding for comprehensive sexuality education, not just abstinence only." She added: "[T]hat's what I would say to the president, that you could do a lot by respecting the right of women, while at the same time encouraging a nation to reduce the need for abortion."
From the June 12 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about women voters in the suburbs. Obviously, abortion rights is a big issue. A lot of those women were very big for Hillary Clinton, emotionally gung-ho about the chances of a first woman president. They're still getting used to the fact that that probably won't happen for a while now. How do you talk to them, if you're Barack Obama? Their feelings, as well as their political minds, are hurt.
DURBIN: Well, they talked about the economic issues. And I think women and men have the same concern about where this country is going and struggling from paycheck to paycheck. When it comes to more basic issues, issues of privacy, certainly it means a lot to all of us. And it means a lot to women in this country.
I think Barack Obama's position on the issue of choice is one that most Americans agree with. He wants to try to downplay and discourage the number of abortions in this country, to have more family planning, to avoid unplanned pregnancies.
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
DURBIN: And I think when you look at John McCain's position, you'll find a more extreme position on this issue.
MATTHEWS: Well, you know, I don't hear Democrats talk like you just did, Senator, about the need to reduce the number of abortions. They talk about the rights issue, the constitutional question of Roe v. Wade, but you don't hear them talking a lot about the need for education, for much fewer, maybe enormously fewer, unwanted pregnancies, which is the reason people get abortions. They don't want a pregnancy. How do Democrats begin to change their tune on that?
DURBIN: Well, it isn't a matter of changing their tune. For many of us, that has been the bottom line. We respect a woman's right to choose, but we also believe that an abortion is not something to be celebrated. We want to reduce the numbers.
We do that through education, through family planning. That's where we ran into resistance from a lot of people like John McCain and a lot of people on the conservative side, who are against abortion but also against the ways to reduce the number of abortions. You can't have it both ways.
MATTHEWS: Well, I think anybody who doesn't want to stop the number of unwanted pregnancies is on the wrong side of that issue. Anyway, we should have fewer abortions, and the way to do that is to create fewer circumstances.
Dear NBC:
PLEASE don't name this clown to replace Tim Russert. PLEASE!!!!!!
Shhhhh.
Don't even think it!
According to Jay Severin here in Boston, the choice should be Rush Limbaugh.
Jay claims he is a Libertarian but I hope any Boston guy that listens to him (best and brightest as he calls them , dumb and dumber in my opinion) for any other purpose than to feel that there is a bigger fool out there, realizes that Severin is a Republican -shoe -licker just like the rest of Right wing talk radio hosts. Conscience is out of their dictionary.
The only reason at all that abortion is even an issue in this country is that it is a wedge issue that is used to enflame those that want to try and tell everyone else how to live their lives!
Conservative right-wingers are the scary loose cannons of this country and would be just as happy to see America destoyed as wrap themselves up in the flag trying to defend it!
It's truly disgusting to portray the anti-abortion position as radical or outside the mainstream, when the other side seems to have no problem with the arbitrary slaughtering of human beings. More than 1 millon a year in this country since Roe v. Wade.
If only the aborted could have TOLD us how they wanted to live THEIR lives or what they wanted to do with THEIR bodies. Pretty sad.
So, you think that pregnant women should be hooked up to an ultrasound AGAINST THEIR WILL and forced to listen to paternalistic right-wing propaganda?
Not a big believer in liberty, are you?
Every two weeks, the government withholds 30 percent of my pay AGAINST MY WILL. The government forces me to buy auto insurance AGAINST MY WILL. My newborn children have been given vaccinations AGAINST MY WILL. Why? Because it's the law. Doctors do things all the time proscribed by governments -- i.e. the people through their elected representatives. Surely the gov't/people's interest in protecting the unborn would supercede interests in tax collection and compulsory auto insurance. Your argument makes NO SENSE. But then again, you're a liberal, so that's not surprising.
Ok Mr. smarty panty pants, what should the sentence be for a 14 year old pregnant person who chooses abortion because she was raped by her relative and cannot get parental permission? Hmmm? NO ONE is pro abortion, even the health care professionals who profit from abortion would much rather be providing other types of health care. Do you really believe there is such a surplus of doctors and nurses that they had to start providing abortions to make a living?
Will we have to lock up pregnant women who are discovered to have been trying to get a first term abortion? Maybe like a nursing home where you can visit them but they they can't get out until they pop. Or a low security jail?
Conspiracy to seek an abortion.
"Ok Mr. smarty panty pants, what should the sentence be for a 14 year old pregnant person who chooses abortion because she was raped by her relative and cannot get parental permission? Hmmm"
That's one of the problems with you pro-abortion people, you don't even know what you're talking about on the issue. You pro-abortion people have made it so that the "14 year old" does NOT NEED parental permission. She doesn't even need to let them know it is happening. So, she can go out and get one, without her parents even knowing. That way the relative who raped her will continue to rape her because there are no consequences for his actions. Your love of inhumanity has caused the death of a human, the rape of a child and the freedom for the rapist.
Job well done by you pro-abortionists.
PHILB,
I could not have said it better.
On a smaller point: Ever try sending your kid to school with an aspirin or cold medicine? They can't take it without the nurse knowing about it. You need parental consent for everything EXCEPT an abortion.
I'm interested to hear what mary59 has to say about the example given about the 14 year old who was raped by a relative but the relative got away with it because the 14 yo isn't required to notify anyone about the crime as she gets her abortion. I'm interested in why she thinks a woman in danger of losing her life won't be able to get qualified medical care. "No wire hangers" was a great slogan during her day, but the fact is, medical care for the woman would permit needed procedures. She just continues the fear tactics that she used back in the '70's while she fought to get abortions mainstreamed and popularized.
But, like so many pro-abortionists, I suspect she will remain silent during an arguement she has no perception of reality in.
They talk about the rights issue, the constitutional question of Roe v. Wade, but you don't hear them talking a lot about the need for education,
This is the dumbest comment in Matthews's bloviation. Here's a clue for you, Chris - it's not Democrats who oppose more comprehensive sex education. It's three groups, and they all begin with the letter 'R'.
And since you're dense, I'll even give you the answer. The Republicans, the Right-wing, and the Religious.
The flip side of this coin is - Chris also doesn't hear Republicans talk about reducing the number of American military casualties.
"Chris also doesn't hear Republicans talk about reducing the number of American military casualties."
Could that be because you left wingers are causing 1 MILLION dead per year, while the war casualties are 4100 dead in 6 years of battle. A slight difference. These war deaths have reduced the number and capability of terrorists to perform terroristic attacks, they have given a country the ability to rule themselves, not by a murderous dictator and not by terrorists. While the human deaths caused by abortion have achieved what? The ability of left wing zealots to be able to proudly claim victory over rule of law? That's quite an achievement by you left wing people who welcome, even promote the deaths of a million humans a year while whining about a few hundred adults dying trying to provide a safer planet for you to 'off' another million humans.
It seems to me that Mr. Matthews cannot remember what has been stated on his own show. Is it never really listening or is it too much airtime?
Let's face it, these paragons of virtue are on the Tv/Radio continuously tackling every little issue or word blurb that appears. They are over-saturated with words, images clips etc. I think they need time-off from their multiple daily programs or do just one a day. I feel it would make them more conscious of their words/actions. Mr. Matthews is wrong on this but he probably has no idea what was mentioned on his show. I hope that is the case.
Just look at names each "side" gives itself.. PRO life and PRO choice...Pro choice makes sense, because their are people who want to take that choice away. "Pro-life" insinuates that they are fighting people who are against life or "pro-death".
These born again cultic freaks should call their movement, "PRO Backalley Abortions" or "Pro Theocracy".
Tweety should be ashamed if such a thing were possible.
Another tactic of the Republicans and their surrogates is to pick out some arbitary issue and say that (Democrats, Progressives, Liberals, etc) are "silent" about this issue.
"Fluffy the cat was hit by a car today, but if you looked in the NYTimes, you wouldn't know anything about it...why are Liberals supporting the running over of cats with their silence?
Not a strawman at all. Those politically and economically connected do indeed wnat more abortions.
How about a law requiring pregnant women to receive an ultrasound and/or be hooked up to a fetal monitor? I would bet the abortion rate would drop in half if not more. Planned Parenthood is AGAINST a law like that as is NARAL. So..it's fair to say that, in fact, the abortion industry and the doctors are actually FOR abortion, otherwise they'd have no problem with ultrasounds and fetal monitors. And if YOU are against this kind of law -- which DoES NOT ban abortion -- then you too are FOR more abortions
On the January 2, 2003, edition of Hardball, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America Kate Michelman, .......said to guest host Mike Barnicle: "What I would say to the president is that perhaps what he should concentrate on is creating a nation where we focus on making abortion less necessary,
I believe the first step in making this a reality is understanding her definition of necessity vs. that of convenience. If abortion were indeed limited to those of necessity this wouldn't be the wedge issue it has become.
If abortion were indeed limited to those of necessity this wouldn't be the wedge issue it has become.
BZZZZZZZTT. Only the one in need can define necessity. Once society defines, we are no longer talking about "choice".
Once society defines, we are no longer talking about "choice".
So what role do you believe society should play in establishing laws - and who they should selectively apply to?
"So what role do you believe society should play in establishing laws - and who they should selectively apply to?"
Are you asking this question as a generality? or specifically to the issue of abortion?
If a pregnancy is avoided, whether through education, abstinence, or just plain dumb luck, then an abortion is unnecessary from everybody's point of view.
DING-DING-DING-DING-DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are CORRECT!!!!!!!
If abortion were indeed limited to those of necessity this wouldn't be the wedge issue it has become.
WHAT? Are you for real? Unless I grossly misunderstood (and it's possible) You're basically saying, "Gee if we just made it illegal, except when the life of the mother is threatened, then it wouldn't be an issue." THAT'S UTTER NONSENSE!!! The issue would only go away in YOUR OWN MIND. The restof us would still have our opinions, and the majority would, in fact, disagree with you, and we do every time core abortion rights are threatened, and the issue is put to a vote.
How about this: IT WOULDN'T BE A WEDGE ISSUE IF RIGHT-WING RELIGION WHACKO FUNNY-MENTALISTS WOULD LEARN (OR BE FORCED) TO MIND THEIR OWN F-ING BUSINESS AND LIVE THEIR OWN LIVES THE WAY THEY SEE FIT, ACCORDING TO THEIR MORAL CODE AND LET THE REST OF US DECIDE FOR OURSELVES HOW WE WISH TO DO THE SAME.
Margnalizing the religious whackos would also make a lot of issues cease to be wedge issues. That's the solution I would prefer.
"The issue would only go away in YOUR OWN MIND. The rest[ ]of us would still have our opinions, and the majority would, in fact, disagree with you, and we do every time core abortion rights are threatened, and the issue is put to a vote."
And THAT is the problem. Abortion rights advocates are NOT interested in law, only being able to control others lives. Anti-abortionists offer a reasonable compromise (allowing abortion when medically necassary to save woman) and you cry 'NO DEAL!'. You want and demand abortions with no restrictions. Who's the uncompromising-nutcase in this issue? Right---you are.
You know simply voting for those rights mean nothing. Have you noticed that gay marriage rights have been voted on over and over again and never win? Well, all it takes is a rogue judge to put his seal of approval on something and you have gay marriage. That's the reason many will vote for McCain, they won't want these radical judges in control, but would rather see honest fair judges put in places of power. You left-wingers will complain it's because of "core" issues, but the fact is the rest of the nation is tired of judges pandering to left wing maniacs and ignoring what we actually VOTE FOR.
Ah, but who is going to decide where the line between neccissity and convinience is to be drawn? If the pro-make safe abortions illegal movement would stop and think about the big picture they would realize that the status quo is about as good as we can hope for. There is a balance between the extreme positions of each side that is acceptable to the majority of people. Please remember, all pregnant women have the coice to NOT abort. Legalized abortion does not make it mandatory. (Watch Juno a few times)
As a parent, husband, brother and friend of women, I do not want health care practicioners worried about an over zealous DA second guessing their medical decisions. It is bad enough that the need to profit from their decisions already clouds the decision process.
Men shouldn't have any say one way or another on abortion. NONE!!!
As my wife (who has a real way with words) puts it - one penis, no vote.
I think Your wife and I could become good friends!
LOL
J.
If that is your belief, than a man should never have to pay child support...not one cent, if he did not want the child. Pro life makes total sence, contrary to what some of have said here. You are chosing between life and death. Pro choice is a nice way to clean up what is really happening, and making it easier look past the reality of ending the life of a baby.
"Pro life makes total sence, contrary to what some of have said here. You are chosing between life and death. Pro choice is a nice way to clean up what is really happening, and making it easier look past the reality of ending the life of a baby."
Were you alive before Roe v. Wade? Abortions were still prevalent, but only if you could afford it. And they were much more dangerous than in a hospital with a certified doctor. It's not an easy choice to make, it's never an easy choice. And it's much, much more complicated than "choosing between life and death." That's too simplistic to even begin to factor in the health of the mother as well as the future well-being of the child. If you want to talk honestly about the issue, then drop the talking points and political barbs and be honest about it, instead of throwing up crude phrasings as an end-all be-all to the discussion.
Pro life makes total sence
No, it doesn't. What you are advocating is pro-birth, forcing a woman to give birth to a child and care for it for the rest of her life as punishment for the sin of enjoying sex.
Once the children are born, the religious right doesn't care about them one whit until they are old enough to be shipped overseas to die in wars created by lies and designed to make the right and their cronies rich.
Having a child as punishment? Isn't that a line from a St, Barack speech?
It has nothing to do with PUNISHMENT. It's about taking responsibility for your own actions. That's what it really comes down to with abortion. The liberals are for living in the moment without the consequences. It's why abortion is so widespread. An d it's why a majority of abortions are performed on women -- with full backing from the fathers -- who CAN afford to take responsibility for raising that child.
Its hardly "taking responsibility for your own actions" when you're FORCED to carry a pregnancy to term. That is simply a case of arrogant, paternalistic, right wing busy bodies FORCING THEIR OWN SO-CALLED VALUES DOWN THE THROATS OF THOSE WHO DEIGN TO MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES FOR THEIR OWN LIVES! Get it? A woman's body is HERS... NOT YOURS. Its NOT for YOU to decide what SHE shall do with it, NOR is it for YOU to inflict yourself into HER decision making process.
Why are right wingers so often such slavish supporters of the state controlling the life of the individual?
MESCAL:
Why is being pregnant a PUNISHMENT? Please explain that.
POV,
If abortion is made illegal, where does this end? Will a mother be investigated if she loses her fetus through miscarraige? After all, she could have aborted it.
I don't think anyone here wants more abortion, but rather wants it as an option.
Pro-life might make sense if the supporters of the movement cared as much for the living as they do the fetus.
Fried
I dont think anyone wants more abortions either, but I find it interesting that people here make stupid comments like a man should have no say, or that the religious right does not care once the kids are born, and then simply treat those dumb comments like established facts.
In my view, of course things like the health of the mother have to be a factor, but this is not some simple medical decision with no consequences. It results in the detah of the baby, and dont even get me started on partial birth abprtion, where in fact, the baby is in fact half delivered when the "procedure takes place.
POV,
I think where most disagreements take place is regarding when does a fetus become a baby.
Very few abortions result in the death of a baby. Only abortions where the mother's life is in danger or her health is in real danger, or where the fetus is so malformed that it could to survive outside the womb are viable fetuses aborted.
A miscarriaged fetus is not a baby. Neither is an aborted non-viable fetus a baby.
or where the fetus is so malformed that it could to (couldn't, perhaps?) survive outside the womb are viable fetuses aborted.
The definition of "viable" is the ability to survive outside the womb. So, the abortion of a fetus so malformed it can't survive outside the womb, by definition, is not the abortion of a viable fetus.
A fetus is NOT a baby and a baby NOT a fetus.
But BOTH a baby and a fetus are HUMAN BEINGS. That's a scientific fact
The fetus-baby distinction is nothing more than Orwellian doublespeak.
Wrong again.
A fetus is a POTENTIAL human being.
Do you have a scientific citation on that?
What defines a human being at its most basic level?
How about a functioning MIND? How about CONSCIOUSNESS? A human being is not simply DNA. A human being does not consist merely of flesh and fluids overlaying a set of bones. By your definition, a corpse is still a human being. What makes a human being is the ability to think, and to reason, and to experience some level of self awareness.
Interestingly, it is just that very same thinking, reasoning, conscious human being that you would deny the most basic of liberties to, because her choices will likely conflict with your supernatural and oppressive belief system.
It is not some fetus, or gamete, or zygote that actually arouses your passion. They're simply the excuse. Like most anti-choice zealots, it is freedom itself that is your true prey. Your rage is directed at those who dare to think their own thoughts and choose their own paths in this life. Its directed at women who opt to freely experience and define their own sexuality rather than toe the repressive line of Biblical proscription. You are a closet fascist who seeks to use the coercive powers of the state to enforce your own straight jacketed and anal retentive sense of morality.
Slow down their Point : "partial birth abprtion" I assume you mean the non-medial term partial birth abortion. That is not a recognized medical procedure, it is slang. The procedure is used very rarely to save the LIFE of someone. The reason we (rational, non extremist people) want it to be a legal procedure is so that in an emergency room, the docs and nurses are not worried about wether thier decisions will get them convicted by some headline lusting DA.
Do you want emergency room care givers to be worried about criminal prosecution while they try to save YOUR LIFE?
The law cannot consider him an equal player in the aftermath of the unplanned pregnancy because there is nothing preventing him from leaving the care of the child at any time (and even if he does pay child support, if he is permitted to insist that a child be born and then physically abandons the mother and child, what can the law do?).
Also, there is no way for the law to know that this very fatherly-looking person earnestly asking for a baby to be brought to term might be an abusive boyfriend or father, an unstable alcoholic, or just a deadbeat who wants to keep his wife barefoot & pregnant to compel her to stay in a physically, financially, and/or emotionally abusive relationship. Since these issues would take a LOT longer than 9 months to resolve in court, it is unfortunately not practical to allow men to insist on what goes on outside of their bodies, when it so greatly affects the life & health of the woman, who would have a much harder time getting out of it.
Are you arguing that a man should have the right to FORCE a woman that he impregnated to have an abortion, in order for him to avoid having to pay child support?
Or are you saying that he should be able to FORCE a woman that he impregnated to carry his child to term?
In either scenario, it would remove ultimate control of a woman's body from HER, and instead to the man that she had sexual relations with.
That would mean that any time a woman chooses to engage in sex, she becomes the de facto property of that man.
This would constitute a radical return to the assumptions of traditional societies.
It would be as if the Enlightenment had never happened.
Actually, Chris, I think that you have just expressed a very reasonable and thoughtful point of view. All things being equal, a man SHOULD have input to such a decision. Hopefully, that level of communication exists between the man and woman involved.
If that level of communication does NOT exist, however, its still her ultimate choice. The man isn't going to be the one with a fetus gestating within his body, after all. He's entitled to his own opinions and his own beliefs, but isn't entitled to force them on her.
As a man, that choice will become mine when I grow a uterus.
Are you arguing that a man should have the right to FORCE a woman that he impregnated to have an abortion, in order for him to avoid having to pay child support?
No. I don't know how you arrived at that question based on my post, but that is not what I am saying. That would be just plain sick.
Or are you saying that he should be able to FORCE a woman that he impregnated to carry his child to term?
Strike two.
In either scenario, it would remove ultimate control of a woman's body from HER, and instead to the man that she had sexual relations with.
Couldn't agree with you more.
That would mean that any time a woman chooses to engage in sex, she becomes the de facto property of that man.
Preaching to the choir.
This would constitute a radical return to the assumptions of traditional societies.
Wouldn't that be awful though?
It would be as if the Enlightenment had never happened
IF enlightenment is 1 million abortions a year then we didn't do to well. Look, all I was pointing out is that that a man who cares for the pregnant woman, who would be a responsible father, and who may actually want a child, should at least get a discussion out of the deal, considering that the fetus is part of him as well and if born he is expected to be responsible. Contrary to what you may believe some men are not just bystanders and sperm donors who could care less about the outcome of a pregnancy. Should we legally force a woman to counsult with the father....No. But, I would question the charachter of the woman who simply makes such a decision on her own if the potential father is an honorable person who cares. He deserves to have input even if in the end it is the womans' body and the woman's choice.
I can't argue with that response.
Excellent post.
"I don't hear Democrats talk...
Matthews never hears anyone talk because he's usually interrupting his guests or talking over them.
Matthews is nuts. I swear he has ADD. He can see a clip or listen to a tape, or read a comment on the air and then immediately discuss it as if he had read something completely different!
I find myself saying "HUH?" or "WTF?" or "How did he get this from that?"
I can't even watch him anymore he's so out of tune or off course most of the time.
Do not get it.
"this is getting ethnic now..."
Aiyeeee.
So Mathews has decided he's pro life.
Nearly no one in that group is concerned with the deaths in the US caused by cigarettes and guns.
Mathews has never called Right to Life on their own inconsistencies.
Nearly no one in that group is concerned with the deaths in the US caused by cigarettes and guns.
Or war. I don't see how someone who is "pro-life" is in favor of people being killed in an illegal, pre-emptive war founded on lies.
Where does Matthews say he is pro-life? I reread the article and I didn't see it.