Sebelius cuts funding to Catholic programs

[Rhode Irish]

I'm sorry, you wrote "credentialed" but you meant "Keynsian" economists.

Economists agree that TARP was necessary, however the stimulus is widely accepted as a complete waste of money, even by Obama.

Obama: Shovel Ready jobs not shovel ready - YouTube

Yuck it up. Good sense of humor on that POS-POTUS.

The counter for "austerity" being toxic is to ask why we don't just send every man woman and child a check for $100,000. Debts don't matter right? Spending is where it is at so put tons of money in the hands of Americans so we can consume our way out of this. You are smart enough, Rhode, that I don't have to explain the fallacy of this current course.

Obviously there has to be a solution that is in some parts reduction in spending and some parts generation of revenue. I don't think spending recklessly is the answer. Instead, put the money you do spend to uses that are most likely to get stimulate economic growth.

I like parts of the Simpson/Bowles plan, which eliminates government expenditures through the tax code and applies the savings equally to paying down the deficit and lowering marginal tax rates. Simpson/Bowles also generates revenue and broadens the tax base by treating capital gains as ordinary gains. My only disagreement with Simpson/Bowles is that I would prefer to make the income tax more progressive than they suggest by not reducing the marginal rate for the wealthiest taxpayers, then using the additional revenue generated to fund infrastructure repairs that are badly needed both in their own right and in order to provide more employment opportunities for the working class.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...but think about how much more of an impact foreign and monetary policy have than abortion...

Well, it sort of depends on who you are, right...? And surely at some point in all of our lives our mothers' decisions regarding abortion had a much, much larger impact on us than, say, Qaddafi's overthrow or Bernake's Operation Twist.

 

[RDU Irish]

Taxing capital will reduce the amount of capital put to work. Consider two investments, both of which pay back $200 in the future. One requires a $100 investment and the gains will be taxed at 20%. The other requires a $90 investment but the gains are taxed at 40%. Which investment would you make?

That is the comparative difference between a country with a 40% tax rate and a 20% tax rate on business or capital. A lower tax rate means you can pay more to take on the same project. Conversely, we have higher taxes AND higher regulatory/compliance/employment costs than the rest of the world. Not a real head scratcher as to why the capital intensive manufacturing sector is running away.

Cheap abundant energy, lower regulation, more reasonable environmental standards in right-to-work states will bring back middle class jobs.

I really don't get the counter argument that evil business is just pillaging the women and raping the horses when this trend has been slapping us in the face for over a decade.


As for OWS, I'll let this guy handle it for me.

Afterburner with Bill Whittle: Three and a Half Days - YouTube

 

[WaveDomer]

Seriously? You want me to write a dissertation about why Republic policies are bad for ordinary people? My agreement with the quoted comment was really with the idea that people that are focusing on these contentious hot button social issues are casting their votes based on the wrong thing.

Now, aside from that, I do happen to agree with the rest of the quoted paragraph concerning republican political agenda, but I could have agreed with his initial sentence even if I didn't. Here are some specifics for why agree with each of the things 95NDAlumniNW said:

- I think that conservative policies have restricted personal liberties by eroding the many of the protections historically afforded by the 6th (and 14th) Amendment; and through many of the more draconian elements of the Patriot Act (i.e. warrantless wiretapping, etc.), among other things.

-I think that republican policies are hurting the middle class and increasing the chasm between rich and poor through tax policies that favor the wealthy; by favoring policies of deregulation and allowing banks and corporations to operate in a virtually lawless environment; by taking a decidedly pro-management stance on labor policy, while "management" continues to be paid more, labor continues to be paid less and jobs continue to disappear overseas; by failing to pass any sort of jobs-generating legislation while controlling the House and opposing their political opposition's every attempt to do so; and by taking a position in opposition to unemployment benefits that people desperately need, because they think it encourages laziness.

-I think that republicans disregard for the environment is so well documented it does not require an explanation here.

- And I think an argument could be made that republicans are "destroying what this country is all about" (although I probably would have chosen different wording for this idea than he did) by creating a culture of obstinate obstructionism in Washington that has left the federal government unable to do anything substantial to address our dismal current state of affairs; and by cultivating the current toxic state of the political discourse in this country. The right is certainly more politically savvy than the left, but part of that is trading in a brand of inflammatory rhetoric that is reckless and irresponsible.

No, I don't want a dissertation on anything. However, when people throw out BS generalizations, they are baseless unless backed up with statistics or at least some type of analysis. When I ask for specifics, I am asking for something tangible that I can grab onto. Saying something like "Republicans haven't done anything for jobs" or "Republicans are obstructionists" or "Republican tax policy favors the rich and kills the middle class" is nice but it's just bomb throwing BS that, for one, isn't true and two, doesn't forward the conversation.

 

[Carlyle Javar Holiday]

Pro choice Catholics FTMFW!!!

 

[mgriff]

Well, it sort of depends on who you are, right...? And surely at some point in all of our lives our mothers' decisions regarding abortion had a much, much larger impact on us than, say, Qaddafi's overthrow or Bernake's Operation Twist.

No, you're seeing inflation due to the Fed expanding the money supply as we go further and further into debt, and our foreign aid coupled with the meddling in the affairs of other countries makes us broke and unsecure. An abortion, or all abortions, would not have that kind of impact on everyday Americans. I understand it's a hot button issue and very important to some people, it's their right to vote along that line if they want, but it really pales in comparison to the larger problems facing our nation.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

No, you're seeing inflation due to the Fed expanding the money supply as we go further and further into debt, and our foreign aid coupled with the meddling in the affairs of other countries makes us broke and unsecure. An abortion, or all abortions, would not have that kind of impact on everyday Americans. I understand it's a hot button issue and very important to some people, it's their right to vote along that line if they want, but it really pales in comparison to the larger problems facing our nation.

I didn't say that abortion policy has a greater effect on "everyday Americans", I said on *some* Americans. Specifically, pregnant mothers, soon-to-be fathers, fetuses, and anyone interested in whether such fetus lives or dies.

To put it another way, you could legalize pedophilia tomorrow, and you'd be right to say the aggregate effect on all Americans wouldn't nearly rival that of global inflation or the War on Terror. But if someone happens to choose pedophilia policy as the litmus test for how they're going to choose their political leaders, it would seem pretty callous to say to that person "you know, pedophiles don't nearly affect the U.S. as much as the Fed Funds Rate."

 

[Anchorman]

We have higher taxes AND higher regulatory/compliance/employment costs than the rest of the world. Not a real head scratcher as to why the capital intensive manufacturing sector is running away.

Not sure where you get that we have higher taxes than the rest of the world, but that is simply factually incorrect. Furthermore, tax rates now are lower than they have been historically.

 

[ACamp1900]

I personally think a playoff system would be terrible for college football...

 

[RallySonsOfND]

During a recession the government should spend money. When the economy is generating a surplus we should pay down the deficit. That is my view. I'm not trying to replay the whole Occupy Wall Street thread again. Obviously, members of this board differ politically. We just have to accept that.

GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SPEND MONEY EFFICIENTLY.

The PRIVATE sector creates jobs that GROW the economy. The PRIVATE sector will get us out of the recession.

 

[IrishLax]

I want to get into this thread because Rhode Irish is speaking a lot of truth that is not getting listened to... but that Occupy Wall Street thread made me reach my monthly quota for pointless internet political debates/

 

[FrankMA]

I personally think a playoff system would be terrible for college football...

I agree 100% with you on this. A playoff system would ruin college football.

 

[TerryTate]

 

[palinurus]

Seriously? You want me to write a dissertation about why Republic policies are bad for ordinary people? My agreement with the quoted comment was really with the idea that people that are focusing on these contentious hot button social issues are casting their votes based on the wrong thing.

Now, aside from that, I do happen to agree with the rest of the quoted paragraph concerning republican political agenda, but I could have agreed with his initial sentence even if I didn't. Here are some specifics for why agree with each of the things 95NDAlumniNW said:

- I think that conservative policies have restricted personal liberties by eroding the many of the protections historically afforded by the 6th (and 14th) Amendment; and through many of the more draconian elements of the Patriot Act (i.e. warrantless wiretapping, etc.), among other things.

-I think that republican policies are hurting the middle class and increasing the chasm between rich and poor through tax policies that favor the wealthy; by favoring policies of deregulation and allowing banks and corporations to operate in a virtually lawless environment; by taking a decidedly pro-management stance on labor policy, while "management" continues to be paid more, labor continues to be paid less and jobs continue to disappear overseas; by failing to pass any sort of jobs-generating legislation while controlling the House and opposing their political opposition's every attempt to do so; and by taking a position in opposition to unemployment benefits that people desperately need, because they think it encourages laziness.

-I think that republicans disregard for the environment is so well documented it does not require an explanation here.

- And I think an argument could be made that republicans are "destroying what this country is all about" (although I probably would have chosen different wording for this idea than he did) by creating a culture of obstinate obstructionism in Washington that has left the federal government unable to do anything substantial to address our dismal current state of affairs; and by cultivating the current toxic state of the political discourse in this country. The right is certainly more politically savvy than the left, but part of that is trading in a brand of inflammatory rhetoric that is reckless and irresponsible.

One can say this only if one wishes to willfully ignore American political history of the last 30 years. The "modern" disharmony of the American political process actually started in the 1980s with the personal and dishonest attacks of Democrats on the Judiciary Committee on Robert Bork. Prior to that, judicial nominations were generally pretty tame affairs. From that point on, recriminations, hardly unusual in the American political process, became de rigueur. Of course, I could go on and list 30 examples of "toxic" behavior by Democrats and other leftists (think James Carville, Paul Begala, and other professional liars as well as the "Bush as Hitler" and "Bush as the hater of African Americans" attacks), and you could probably come up with some bad behavior on the part of Republicans. But that would support my point -- that it takes two to tango -- and not your hilariously-biased point, which is not supported by any facts.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

-I think that republican policies are hurting the middle class and increasing the chasm between rich and poor through tax policies that favor the wealthy; by favoring policies of deregulation and allowing banks and corporations to operate in a virtually lawless environment; by taking a decidedly pro-management stance on labor policy, while "management" continues to be paid more, labor continues to be paid less and jobs continue to disappear overseas; by failing to pass any sort of jobs-generating legislation while controlling the House and opposing their political opposition's every attempt to do so; and by taking a position in opposition to unemployment benefits that people desperately need, because they think it encourages laziness.

I seriously laughed out loud when I read that part. Approximately 50% of Americans currently pay ZERO, I repeat ZERO income taxes.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UGL-Ex1CD1c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


The first dude he talks to is my favorite. hahah

 

[GreatGolson]

not even coming near this runaway train. politics and the internet rarely go well together

 

[BeauBenken]

Alright, I tried hard not to say anything, but I have to at least say this.

Just because you are against abortion does not mean you are against it because of a religious reason. Honestly, it's stupid if you believe anything because the (or a) church tells you to.

I'm against abortion (barring certain situations) because I believe that before birth it is still a human life, and to my knowledge, the termination of a human life by another human is murder which is against the law and against my morals.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I can't possibly respond to every single comment made in disagreement to my earlier posts and still get everything done in the real world that I need to get done. Suffice it to say, my opinions are based on the totality of my experiences, which has included no shortage of studying these issues, and I fully stand by my opinions. I recognize that we won't all agree on everything. I still think you all are good dudes; we just disagree.

I have noticed that nobody has responded to my original post in this thread, which was actually related to the subject that this thread was intended to address. I remain curious about why people aren't content living their own religious values and ideals and are insistent upon using a government (which was designed to represent people of different beliefs) to enforce their beliefs on those who do not share them.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

lol

 

[BeauBenken]

I can't possibly respond to every single comment made in disagreement to my earlier posts and still get everything done in the real world that I need to get done. Suffice it to say, my opinions are based on the totality of my experiences, which has included no shortage of studying these issues, and I fully stand by my opinions. I recognize that we won't all agree on everything. I still think you all are good dudes; we just disagree.

I have noticed that nobody has responded to my original post in this thread, which was actually related to the subject that this thread was intended to address. I remain curious about why people aren't content living their own religious values and ideals and are insistent upon using a government (which was designed to represent people of different beliefs) to enforce their beliefs on those who do not share them.

It's not just religious. I don't believe in it (again, barring certain situations) because it's simply against my morals. It's killing another person.

 

[Rhode Irish]

It's not just religious. I don't believe in it (again, barring certain situations) because it's simply against my morals. It's killing another person.

OK, and my advice to you, whatever the basis for your view, is to not have an abortion if you find it objectionable. Not everyone agrees with you that a fertilized egg is a human being. Some people think a fertilized egg is a fertilized egg. And since that egg is inside of an actual human being, those people believe that human being should be permitted to make their own decision about how they want to treat that fertilized egg.

Again, I don't begrudge you your opinion on the morality of abortion. I'm just curious why you (and others) feel that everyone should have to abide by your opinion.

 

[BeauBenken]

OK, and my advice to you, whatever the basis for your view, is to not have an abortion if you find it objectionable. Not everyone agrees with you that a fertilized egg is a human being. Some people think a fertilized egg is a fertilized egg. And since that egg is inside of an actual human being, those people believe that human being should be permitted to make their own decision about how they want to treat that fertilized egg.

Again, I don't begrudge you your opinion on the morality of abortion. I'm just curious why you (and others) feel that everyone should have to abide by your opinion.

I didn't even say when I believed it was human life though.

And I don't see how once there is a heartbeat that anyone can say it isn't a life, and a heartbeat can be detected by ultrasound at 5 weeks. Yet, you're allowed to abort as late as 24 weeks later.

There are also plenty of other laws that force people to abide to an opinion they don't agree with.

I honestly don't see why people are so okay WITH abortion.

I too don't begrudge you on your opinion. I just really can't (completely) agree with it.

 

[irishog77]

Seriously? You want me to write a dissertation about why Republic policies are bad for ordinary people? My agreement with the quoted comment was really with the idea that people that are focusing on these contentious hot button social issues are casting their votes based on the wrong thing.

Now, aside from that, I do happen to agree with the rest of the quoted paragraph concerning republican political agenda, but I could have agreed with his initial sentence even if I didn't. Here are some specifics for why agree with each of the things 95NDAlumniNW said:

- I think that conservative policies have restricted personal liberties by eroding the many of the protections historically afforded by the 6th (and 14th) Amendment; and through many of the more draconian elements of the Patriot Act (i.e. warrantless wiretapping, etc.), among other things.

-I think that republican policies are hurting the middle class and increasing the chasm between rich and poor through tax policies that favor the wealthy; by favoring policies of deregulation and allowing banks and corporations to operate in a virtually lawless environment; by taking a decidedly pro-management stance on labor policy, while "management" continues to be paid more, labor continues to be paid less and jobs continue to disappear overseas; by failing to pass any sort of jobs-generating legislation while controlling the House and opposing their political opposition's every attempt to do so; and by taking a position in opposition to unemployment benefits that people desperately need, because they think it encourages laziness.

-I think that republicans disregard for the environment is so well documented it does not require an explanation here.

- And I think an argument could be made that republicans are "destroying what this country is all about" (although I probably would have chosen different wording for this idea than he did) by creating a culture of obstinate obstructionism in Washington that has left the federal government unable to do anything substantial to address our dismal current state of affairs; and by cultivating the current toxic state of the political discourse in this country. The right is certainly more politically savvy than the left, but part of that is trading in a brand of inflammatory rhetoric that is reckless and irresponsible.

I can't possibly respond to every single comment made in disagreement to my earlier posts and still get everything done in the real world that I need to get done. Suffice it to say, my opinions are based on the totality of my experiences, which has included no shortage of studying these issues, and I fully stand by my opinions. I recognize that we won't all agree on everything. I still think you all are good dudes; we just disagree.

I have noticed that nobody has responded to my original post in this thread, which was actually related to the subject that this thread was intended to address. I remain curious about why people aren't content living their own religious values and ideals and are insistent upon using a government (which was designed to represent people of different beliefs) to enforce their beliefs on those who do not share them.

Not to be trite, but if one reads these two posts of yours, then it is difficult not to conclude that, at best, you're misguided in the role of government. It is perfectly fine for them to regulate businesses, the environment, civil liberties, and taxes...but not murder?

Man, in a state of nature (trying to throw God out of the equation here for you), still regulates its society. There is a reason societies regulate behavior. How functional would a society be where theft, rape, incest, murder, bestiality, necrophilia, deceit, pedophilia, and property destruction (just to name a few) where allowed to occur? In that state of nature, the citizens of the society would have to constantly live in fear and be subject to those actions. How and in what way is that advancing liberty for its citizens?

I'm not against murdering a baby because I am Catholic nor have I ever believed Catholics should make all decisions in the United States of America. I'm against murder because my Faith AND REASON compels me to be against it, but also because in a state of nature, in no way does it benefit me or advance a society's liberties.

 

[palinurus]

I can't possibly respond to every single comment made in disagreement to my earlier posts and still get everything done in the real world that I need to get done. Suffice it to say, my opinions are based on the totality of my experiences, which has included no shortage of studying these issues, and I fully stand by my opinions. I recognize that we won't all agree on everything. I still think you all are good dudes; we just disagree.

I have noticed that nobody has responded to my original post in this thread, which was actually related to the subject that this thread was intended to address. I remain curious about why people aren't content living their own religious values and ideals and are insistent upon using a government (which was designed to represent people of different beliefs) to enforce their beliefs on those who do not share them.

I agree with your point that we can disagree without being personal. No hard feelings here.

But why do you describe these political positions as being based on "religious beliefs"? Because they are consistent with teachings of a religious entity? Wouldn't the logic of your position, if applied uniformly, invalidate just about every type of law there is?

In fact, the Catholic teaching on abortion isn't based on a religious doctrine, such as the Immaculate Conception; it's based on the moral principle and belief in the intrinsic value of human life. This is a principal found both in and out of the Catholic Church. It's true that the Church teaches this and other things based on moral principles. But how does that render arguments based on the principle invalid? And aren't moral principles -- some taught by the Church, some not -- the basis of virtually all laws (property laws, tax laws, criminal laws, welfare laws, etc.)? Wasn't the civil rights movement of the 1960s based similarly on principles that had their foundation in "religious beliefs"? And wasn't that a good thing?

My main problem, then, with the "don't push your religious beliefs on others" argument is that -- (a) they aren't "religious beliefs"; (b) such beliefs form the basis of our entire jurisprudence; and (c) liberals do the same thing (when it suits them).

Most problematically, the argument is an intellectually dishonest (not you necessarily, but the argument itself) attempt to pigeon-hole an argument and those who make it, and then dismiss them, without ever really addressing the underlying principles or substantive intellectual argument. Rather than argue in favor of abortion rights, it's easier to launch the ad hominem -- "oh, that's just what religious zealots believe," or else portray those who make the argument as being in blind tow to a religious dogma. Since when do religious believers lose their right to participate in the political system or the public square?

Opposition to abortion is based on moral principles, and those principles undergird our entire legal and societal system. Because those moral principles are accepted by religion doesn't render them -- or argument based on them -- invalid.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Not to be trite, but if one reads these two posts of yours, then it is difficult not to conclude that, at best, you're misguided in the role of government. It is perfectly fine for them to regulate businesses, the environment, civil liberties, and taxes...but not murder?

Man, in a state of nature (trying to throw God out of the equation here for you), still regulates its society. There is a reason societies regulate behavior. How functional would a society be where theft, rape, incest, murder, bestiality, necrophilia, deceit, pedophilia, and property destruction (just to name a few) where allowed to occur? In that state of nature, the citizens of the society would have to constantly live in fear and be subject to those actions. How and in what way is that advancing liberty for its citizens?

I'm not against murdering a baby because I am Catholic nor have I ever believed Catholics should make all decisions in the United States of America. I'm against murder because my Faith AND REASON compels me to be against it, but also because in a state of nature, in no way does it benefit me or advance a society's liberties.

Of course it is reasonable for the government to regulate murder. I've never heard it argued that government should not punish murderers. Nobody is for murdering babies. Women who exercise control over their own reproductive systems aren't murderers, in my opinion. That is not due to a misunderstanding on my part about the nature of government. That is due to knowing women and respecting their privacy and their right to decide what they do with their bodies.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I agree with your point that we can disagree without being personal. No hard feelings here.

But why do you describe these political positions as being based on "religious beliefs"? Because they are consistent with teachings of a religious entity? Wouldn't the logic of your position, if applied uniformly, invalidate just about every type of law there is?

In fact, the Catholic teaching on abortion isn't based on a religious doctrine, such as the Immaculate Conception; it's based on the moral principle and belief in the intrinsic value of human life. This is a principal found both in and out of the Catholic Church. It's true that the Church teaches this and other things based on moral principles. But how does that render arguments based on the principle invalid? And aren't moral principles -- some taught by the Church, some not -- the basis of virtually all laws (property laws, tax laws, criminal laws, welfare laws, etc.)? Wasn't the civil rights movement of the 1960s based similarly on principles that had their foundation in "religious beliefs"? And wasn't that a good thing?

My main problem, then, with the "don't push your religious beliefs on others" argument is that -- (a) they aren't "religious beliefs"; (b) such beliefs form the basis of our entire jurisprudence; and (c) liberals do the same thing (when it suits them).

Most problematically, the argument is an intellectually dishonest (not you necessarily, but the argument itself) attempt to pigeon-hole an argument and those who make it, and then dismiss them, without ever really addressing the underlying principles or substantive intellectual argument. Rather than argue in favor of abortion rights, it's easier to launch the ad hominem -- "oh, that's just what religious zealots believe," or else portray those who make the argument as being in blind tow to a religious dogma. Since when do religious believers lose their right to participate in the political system or the public square?

Opposition to abortion is based on moral principles, and those principles undergird our entire legal and societal system. Because those moral principles are accepted by religion doesn't render them -- or argument based on them -- invalid.

C'mon, clearly there is a difference between moral issues upon which everyone agrees (like murder) and moral issues upon which people disagree sharply (like abortion). My personal opinion, which I haven't made a part of this discussion to this point, is that I don't really like the idea of abortion. If I were asked for advice by someone considering the procedure, I would not recommend abortion under almost any circumstance. But I also don't think it is my place, or the government's place, to tell a woman she does not have the right to make that choice herself. Not prosecuting women for making their own reproductive choices does not equate to endorsing the procedure, no more than not prosecuting adulterers equates to endorsing adultery.

 

[irishog77]

Of course it is reasonable for the government to regulate murder. I've never heard it argued that government should not punish murderers. Nobody is for murdering babies. Women who exercise control over their own reproductive systems aren't murderers, in my opinion. That is not due to a misunderstanding on my part about the nature of government. That is due to knowing women and respecting their privacy and their right to decide what they do with their bodies.

Well I'm sure Jerry Sandusky didn't believe what he was doing was wrong either. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there too that don't believe 18 makes a person an adult. After all, it's just an arbitrary, subjective age. So, having sex with a person under age, even if he or she consents to it, is really just a law that nixes one's ability to get his or her respective swirl on. Gah, I can't believe we have such outdated, draconian laws out there preventing stuff like that.

 

[palinurus]

OK, and my advice to you, whatever the basis for your view, is to not have an abortion if you find it objectionable. Not everyone agrees with you that a fertilized egg is a human being. Some people think a fertilized egg is a fertilized egg. And since that egg is inside of an actual human being, those people believe that human being should be permitted to make their own decision about how they want to treat that fertilized egg.

Again, I don't begrudge you your opinion on the morality of abortion. I'm just curious why you (and others) feel that everyone should have to abide by your opinion.

I wonder how the argument "My advice to you, Abe Lincoln, whatever the basis for your view that slavery is wrong and immoral, is to not own any slaves if you find it objectionable" would have been viewed? In fact, the argument was made, and was rejected, because there was a moral imperative to oppose great evil. The argument that opposition to slavery was zealotry was also raised by slaveholders and, thankfully, was rejected.

 

[Patulski]

The GOP is in trouble with the white, working class independent voter. The Conservative magazine The Weekly Standard explains why: Losing the Working Class

Cheap abundant energy, lower regulation, more reasonable environmental standards in right-to-work states will bring back middle class jobs.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Well I'm sure Jerry Sandusky didn't believe what he was doing was wrong either. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there too that don't believe 18 makes a person an adult. After all, it's just an arbitrary, subjective age. So, having sex with a person under age, even if he or she consents to it, is really just a law that nixes one's ability to get his or her respective swirl on. Gah, I can't believe we have such outdated, draconian laws out there preventing stuff like that.

OK, now we're venturing into the absurd. I'd rather not go around in circles. We look at the issue differently, and I don't have the time or the desire to continue to debate this ad nauseam. The fact that reasonable people can differ so dramatically is, I think, one reason why this kind of issue continues to get dragged into election politics. Its a wedge issue that heightens emotions on both sides and distracts from much more important matters.

I also think, oddly enough, that there is major geographical component to this. I'm from the northeast, and other than the priest in the church I grew up in or people demonstrating in front of Planned Parenthood, I don't think I've met many pro-life people. My position isn't very radical where I'm from; in fact, its a little taboo to be anything but pro-choice. Interesting to hear some other perspectives.