An approach like that is too obvious to appeal to the religious zealots who comprise the “Christian” right.

Over 90% of trisomy-21 fetuses are aborted. A major reason for that is the huge emotional and financial burden or raising a Down’s child and supporting it into adulthood. Obviously if someone really cared about reducing the rate of abortions they would adbvocate a generous support program for the victims of such circumstances.

Likewise a huge cause of other abortions is young or poor women finding themselves pregnant and looking forward to a life of impoverishment trying to raise a child, often alone. But we as a society have already made it clear we don’t want “welfare mothers”.

So there we are.

I think that many who are pro-life are starting to come around to that opinion as well and if so then perhaps we can have a new definition of pro-life that we can all support.

I also enjoyed hearing from the panel itself today. Not all conservatives are incapable of civil discourse.

McCain voted against our troops MANY times in the senate.
John McCain voted AGAINST 20 million dollars for veteran care facilities.
John McCain voted AGAINST $322 million for safety equipment for our troops in Iraq.
John McCain voted AGAINST $1 billion dollars in new equipment for the National Guard.
John McCain voted AGAINST $430 million for veterans outpatient care.

Barack voted FOR all of these troop support initiatives.

They deserve better than McCain.
We deserve better than McCain.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS AND VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT

I’ve heard it over and over this past week.

Is that what people really want in a vice-potentially-President? Someone they know from PTA and can “talk to in the supermarket”? “Someone who’s just like me”?

I couldn’t be president. I know that. I don’t want someone just like me to be in charge of our country. That’s terrifying, in fact.

What’s wrong with wanting a president who is on the smarter side of the population? When did that become perceived as a negative?

We do not live in a theocracy, I fear however that is the path the religious right want this country to go down.

Religion should be a private matter held in your house or place of worship. Not in the houses of state.

CAMPAIGN AUTO-DESTRUCT SEQUENCE INITIATED.

PLEASE EVACUATE CAMPAIGN IMMEDIATELY.

WALK DON’T RUN TO THE NEAREST SECESSIONIST LEANING STATE (TEXAS)

CORE PHILOSOPHY MELTDOWN IMMINENT!

CORE PHILOSOPHY MELTDOWN IMMINENT!

CORE PHILOSOPHY MELTDOWN IMMINENT!

Robert

These people use the Bible and your show to justify war crimes. Disgusting, just disgusting.

I’m pro-choice, but I’m still fascinated by the primitive, highly emotional responses that this topic seems to generate.

Unless you’re a strict libertarian, you presumably have to regard every law government makes as being “shoved down your throat”. But you don’t usually see that response to other topics – people don’t usually complain about the federal highway gas tax or the Americans for Disability Act or lack of national health insurance as being “shoved down their throats”.

The fact is that in a democratic system of government the government can pretty much shove anything they want down your throat, subject to Constitutional limits.

And of course, the anti-choice crowd (why let them hijack the term “pro life”?) thinks that abortion is murder. It’s intellectually dishonest of the pro-choice side to not acknowledge what that belief implies. Since the question hinges purely on definitionalism, neither side can “prove” that the other one is wrong, so logically it will come down to what you can achieve through democracy.

John McCain graduated at the bottom 1/4 of his class,

Philip Butler graduated at the top 1/4 of his class.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KjsEs46C70

I’m reporting you to the Department of Redundancy Department.

“I was so happy to hear the guest bring up the idea of other talking points that the GOP has to present its case on (the environment, poverty, social issues), but I’m absolutely disgusted with the hijacking of the GOP by the religious people of this country.”

I thought I explained above why “disgust” is not a very useful reaction. As I said, it is often the case in diverse democracies where elections are close-run things, that small, minority interests can gain greater influence by their ability to mobilize a tie-breaking or deal-making group of committed voters.

That the religious right in the US has so much sway over the GOP makes perfect sense from a political science standpoint.

“until the religious right keeps its nose out of politics, “

Why should the religious right keep its nose out of politics? People have a right to form their political views however they wish, and sertainly many people’s value systems are informed by their religious beliefs. The Abolitionist movement and the Civil Rights movement were both heavily promoted by religious leaders.

The challange is not to force religious people out of our democracy, but to ensure that their power does not exceed their numbers. The emotional reaction here, to what is essentially a dry, technical political science problem fascinates me.

As far as Mr. Ashbrook’s objectivity, though I feel his questioning was as tough and reasonable as we’ve come to love and expect, I have to agree that Ms. Schlafly being allowed any media attention is something only a liberal could be pleased with. Mr. Ashbrook should next talk to Michael Moore to return balance to the show.

I say first parenthetically because I doubt that she is his first choice and think that he will drop her now that she has served her purpose in exciting the ho hum and anti-McCain Republicans. Sure, he is taking a hit now and will again when he drops her, but his next choice may light a fire and rectify those negatives leaving McCain with a net gain.