Wow, an intelligent conversation about such an important topic. No screaching, screaming, or attacking. Why is this so rare?

liberty on October 20, 2006 at 9:00 AM

Great episode! These “View with a Clue” videos are quite interesting.

Personally, I’m with La Shawn on calling abortion murder. Like she said, it is what it is, and what it is is ending a human life. I’ve read that horrible feminist blogger’s rant about getting an abortion, and it was unbelievable to me that someone could be so angry at an unborn child and so proud of killing that child. That woman seems cold and heartless, as if her soul is withered.

We can only pray for her and all like her. I know I am.

Olbgasm on October 20, 2006 at 9:09 AM

Glad to see that MM listened to everyone’s comments last week to continue this format, and glad to see that KP, MKH, and LSB were available for another round of discussion!

A little disappointed that the discussion was so dominated by KP, but she did make good points, as she continues to surprise me that she supposedly is a representative of the “left.”

Please MM…make this a weekly thing!

asc85 on October 20, 2006 at 9:11 AM

I just looked at the still pic and knew it was infinitely better than that “DISAGREE” show, whatever it’s called…

y2church on October 20, 2006 at 9:17 AM

Um, so KP is on the left? Huh? What? Explain this one to me? Either she’s misguided or AP has powers beyond
belief.

So, are they going to press her to divulge who she’s voting for on the next VC?

Editor on October 20, 2006 at 9:22 AM

Wow, E L Frederick is right. Keep KP out of politics, unless we can convert her. I really think she has her head on straight, yet on some topics she is still woefully left. It’s people like her that confuse me. I expect people with idiotic views to be consistantly idiotic.

Thanks Michelle and company for having alternatives for us. I hope that someday we get to see this on Fox, opposite the sociali…er democrat view.

aelhues on October 20, 2006 at 9:26 AM

Wow. This was wonderful. It gives me hope.

But won’t KP take a lot of heat from her side for articulating these views? She’s not exactly lining up with the vast majority of lefties, is she?

RightPerspective on October 20, 2006 at 9:28 AM

La Shawn is my new hero.

KP, I have so much respect for you for being that “lone moderately liberal voice.” I agree with earlier posters when they say that you “either need to stay out of politics or come on over to the conservative side!” You would give the screamer H. Dean a run for his money.

Good Vent. Great topic.

pullingmyhairout on October 20, 2006 at 9:32 AM

MORE MORE MORE, PLEASE. Make it a five way with Bethany. There’s plenty of room on the sectional for one more beauty with brains.

rotorhead on October 20, 2006 at 9:32 AM

I’m still waiting to see Allah’s Angels at the gun range!

CharlestonCritic on October 20, 2006 at 9:35 AM

BTW, thanks HA for The Vent. Though I’m sure it’s probably tough from a scheduling issue; I think it’s great that you’re willing to listen to your fans (like MM said)

dalewalt on October 20, 2006 at 9:46 AM

This Vent was brilliant. It could never be on TV no network would carry it because it is so true. No network is about truth. I dare you to ask Ted Turner. No wait he would consult with his guru Hanoi Jane first. Sorry 2 hour commute to work for the last 8 days has got me edgy.

I am was a firm Pro Choice Republican. Even helping 2 friends once in college and one younger to obtain abortions they desperately wanted and did not have the money, courage and support system to get. I was spit on escorting the college girl into a clinic for hers. Being open minded I was moved to read the document prepared for South Dakota voters this year, (can’t find my copy off hand to check which state). I was deeply moved one might say shaken by the information in that document. I am now Pro Life. I am with your statement La Shawn and accuracy is key you are right. MKH you are right and you need to YELL it louder. The girls I helped totally shut up about the event after. I could tell that it hurt them deeply from their reactions. They became totally different people. I wish I knew then what I know now for their sake. They will hurt for the rest of their lives and did not need to. I am saddened for my part in helping them hurt themselves.

Priest on October 20, 2006 at 9:53 AM

E L Frederick wrote: “Keep KP away from Howard Dean’s job. If she ever got to be where Dean is, there would be a whole lot more people going Dem. She’s a voice of reason in an insane party.”

I looked up her bio from her website:

Kirsten Powers served in the Clinton Administration as Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Public Affairs and has worked in New York city and state politics. She was Vice President at America Online for three years, and also was Vice President of the AOL Time Warner Foundation.

This is not an “airhead blond” we’re talking about here, that’s for sure. This is an intelligent, articulate, competent woman of achievement. I can see why AP is smitten.

I hope to see her and the “gang” every Friday for a long time to come.

Bravo, Michelle.

georgej on October 20, 2006 at 9:55 AM

Priest, maybe the part you played did sadden you, but maybe it had a purpose. Maybe you had to experience that situation; now you’ve seen both sides of the issue; and perhaps your voice will carry more conviction now.

dalewalt on October 20, 2006 at 9:57 AM

KPHQ was at it’s highest point ever….drool….;)

With that out of the way, it’s refreshing to see some intelligent conversation on political topics that don’t include beastly women holding up signs and acting like a 13 year old middle school girl. Didn’t seem like there was much debate today seeing as all the positions were pretty much on par with each other, but it certainly is a nice change of pace from the yell and scream MSM shows.

bentman78 on October 20, 2006 at 10:01 AM

It’s nice to see Kirsten get a few words in, unlike when she and Michelle are on O’Reilly.

But seriously, this might be a good moment to rethink the conservative position on abortion, and take a more libertarian view, i.e., Abortion On Demand.

C’mon, no one’s actually in favor of “abortion on demand,” are they?

But why not? Just because human life is precious? Puh-leez. We all favor murder when it suits us - i.e., I bet no one here felt bad about Zarqawi’s wife and child being killed when he was bombed. I certainly didn’t. Because I considered their murders to be justifiable in service to the more important goal of killing Zarqawi.

What’s the benefit to having a bunch of unwanted children being born? Aren’t their murders justifiable in service of the more important goal that children should be PLANNED and WANTED? Continuing to stigmatize abortion doesn’t do any good in a world where we all believe deep down that other people should die to serve our goals.

If we stopped stigmatizing abortion, maybe then all these poor folks who have these kids out of wedlock would be more likely to terminate their pregnancies, thereby sparing themselves from the virtually assured lives of poverty that come with having children when you’re young and unprepared.

Does that make sense? Or did I blow my argument by basically saying that murder is okay?

Enrique on October 20, 2006 at 10:07 AM

Just think if FOX picked this up and put it in the same time slot as that other show. Who would get laid off next?

rocked on October 20, 2006 at 10:09 AM

This is not an “airhead blond” we’re talking about here, that’s for sure. This is an intelligent, articulate, competent woman of achievement. I can see why AP is smitten.

I’m becoming more of a fan than I have been…

She’s more than just a pretty face, and a hellva lot more than “just a silly, giggly girl.” (- Glenn Greenwald)

E L Frederick on October 20, 2006 at 10:13 AM

Oh, they were talking about Unstringing the Violinist.

That is an old argument from the early to mid 90’s.

The message: Don’t unstring him because that is where he/she belongs.

Here goes:

***************************************************

Unstringing the Violinist

Gregory Koukl

Judith Jarvis Thompson’s “Violinist” argument is one of the most compelling ever offered in favor of abortion on demand, but it’s deeply flawed. Here’s where it goes wrong.

divider

I remember exactly where I was the first time I heard Judith Jarvis Thompson’s “Violinist” argument. I was driving south on the 405 freeway in Los Angeles listening to a radio talk-show. It shook me up so much I almost had to pull over.

Not only was the argument compelling, but Thompson made a stunning concession when she acknowledged the full personhood of the unborn. Having conceded what pro-lifers were trying to prove, she short-circuited their argument from the outset.

My first impulse was to throw in the towel. The argument couldn’t be answered, I thought. This is often the case with carefully worded philosophical treatments. At first glance they appear compelling. On closer inspection, though, the flaws begin to show. In this instance, the problems with Thompson’s argument are fatal.

The Violinist Argument

The details of Judith Jarvis Thompson’s argument are important, so I will quote her illustration in full. Entitled “A Defense of Abortion,” it first appeared in 1971 in the Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs.[1]

I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person’s right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother’s right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.

It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, “Tough luck, I agree, but you’ve now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person’s right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.” I imagine you would regard this as outrageous,[2] which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

Judith Jarvis Thompson correctly shows that an additional step is needed to bridge the gap between the premise that the unborn is a person and the conclusion that killing the unborn child is always wrong. What’s needed is the additional premise that taking the life of a person is always wrong. Killing, however, is sometimes permissible, most notably in self-defense.

The reasoning in the violinist illustration is very tight. Thompson accurately represents the pro-life position, and then offers a scenario for us to consider. The analysis employs two powerful techniques of argumentation: an example that appeals to moral intuition followed by a logical slippery slope.

The logical slippery slope works like this. When one thing is immoral, and a second is logically similar in a morally relevant way, the moral quality of the one “slips over” into the other. For example, murder is immoral, and some think capital punishment is similar enough to murder to make capital punishment immoral too.

Thompson is counting on a certain moral intuition—our sense of justice—rising to the surface when we consider the plight of the kidnapped woman used as a host against her will to support the life of a stranger.

She then asks us to consider if having an abortion is a meaningful parallel to unplugging the violinist. Both circumstances catch the woman by surprise. Both the violinist and the unborn child are attached to her body, which both need in order to survive. Both will release her in nine months.

Thompson’s view is that disconnecting the violinist is morally justified even though he’ll die, and there seems to be merit to this appeal. To stay connected would be heroic—”a great kindness,” in her words—but, like all acts of heroism, it is voluntary and not morally required.[3] If that’s the case, then it’s moral to abort a child, even if he or she is a fully human person, just like the violinist. If the first is morally acceptable (unplugging the violinist), and if the second (having an abortion) is similar to the first in a relevant way, then the second should be acceptable also.

A recent book, Breaking the Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent,[4] uses the same approach. Author Eileen McDonagh points out that if a woman’s liberty is being threatened in some fashion—if she is being attacked, raped, or kidnapped—then the law gives her the latitude to use lethal force to repel her attacker.

Pregnancy, McDonagh argues, is this kind of situation. “If a woman has the right to defend herself against a rapist, she also should be able to use deadly force to expel a fetus,” she writes.[5] In pregnancy, a woman is being attacked by another human being—from the inside, not from the outside. Therefore, she has the moral liberty to repel her attacker by killing the intruder.

It does seem obvious that a woman ought to be allowed to protect herself from an attacker and use lethal force to do so, if necessary. If this is true, then we must concede the legitimacy of abortion, which, McDonagh claims, is parallel in a relevant way.

Parallels that Aren’t Parallel

The key question in any slippery slope appeal is whether the two situations are truly similar in a morally relevant way. If not, then the illustration is guilty of a logical slippery slope fallacy. The analogy fails and the argument falls apart.

Are there important differences between pregnancy and kidnapping? Yes, many.

First, the violinist is artificially attached to the woman. A mother’s unborn baby, however, is not surgically connected, nor was it ever “attached” to her. Instead, the baby is being produced by the mother’s own body by the natural process of reproduction.

Both Thompson and McDonagh treat the child—the woman’s own daughter or son–like an invading stranger intent on doing harm. They make the mother/child union into a host/predator relationship.

A child is not an invader, though, a parasite living off his mother. A mother’s womb is the baby’s natural environment. Eileen McDonagh wants us to believe that the child growing inside of a woman is trespassing. One trespasses when he’s not in his rightful place, but a baby developing in the womb belongs there.

Thompson ignores a second important distinction. In the violinist illustration, the woman might be justified withholding life-giving treatment from the musician under these circumstances. Abortion, though, is not merely withholding treatment. It is actively taking another human being’s life through poisoning or dismemberment. A more accurate parallel with abortion would be to crush the violinist or cut him into pieces before unplugging him.

Third, the violinist illustration is not parallel to pregnancy because it equates a stranger/stranger relationship with a mother/child relationship. This is a key point and brings into focus the most dangerous presumption of the violinist illustration, also echoed in McDonagh’s thesis. Both presume it is unreasonable to expect a mother to have any obligations towards her own child.

The violinist analogy suggests that a mother has no more responsibility for the welfare of her child than she has to a total stranger. McDonagh’s view is even worse. She argues the child is not merely a stranger, but a violent assailant the mother needs to ward off in self-defense.

This error becomes immediately evident if we amend Thompson’s illustration. What if the mother woke up from an accident to find herself surgically connected to her own child? What kind of mother would willingly cut the life-support system to her two-year-old in a situation like that? And what would we think of her if she did?

Blood relationships are never based on choice, yet they entail moral obligations, nonetheless. This is why the courts prosecute negligent parents. They have consistently ruled, for example, that fathers have an obligation to support their children even if they are unplanned and unwanted.

If it is moral for a mother to deny her child the necessities of life (through abortion) before it is born, how can she be obligated to provide the same necessities after he’s born? Remember, Thompson concedes that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. If her argument works to justify abortion, it works just as well to justify killing any dependent child. After all, a two-year-old makes a much greater demand on a woman than a developing unborn.

Thompson is mistaken in presuming that pregnancy is the thing that expropriates a woman’s liberty. Motherhood does that, and motherhood doesn’t end with the birth of the child. Unlike the woman connected to the violinist, a mother is not released in nine months. Her burden has just begun. If Thompson’s argument works, then no child is safe from a mother who wants her liberty.

In the end, both Thompson’s and McDonagh’s arguments prove too much. They allow us to kill any human being who is dependent upon us, young or old, if that person restrains our personal liberty.

The simple fact is, in a civilized society no one has the freedom to do whatever she wants with her own body. Liberty unfettered by morality is the operative rule of anarchy, not civilization. At any given moment, each of us is constrained by hundreds of laws reflecting our moral responsibilities to our community. The most primal of those rules is the obligation of a mother to her helpless child. This is one of the reasons the public outcry against Susan Smith was so intense.

Susan Smith Morality

Susan Smith shocked the nation with the murder of her children. She believed her two young boys were an obstacle to remarriage, so she placed them in her car, fastened their seat belts, and drove them into the lake.

Smith’s crime was especially obscene because she violated the most fundamental moral obligation of all: the responsibility a mother has for her own children. Yet wouldn’t Susan Smith be exonerated by Thompson’s and McDonagh’s logic? These children were kidnappers and interlopers, trespassing on Smith’s life, depriving her of liberty. Why not kill them? Those boys were attacking her. It was self-defense.

Last year, a couple in New York was arrested when authorities learned they took a 10-day vacation to Florida and left their young children behind to fend for themselves. If McDonagh’s and Thompson’s arguments work, these parents should be released from jail because they bear no more obligation towards their own children than they do to strangers across town or burglars who break into their house. Those children were invading their privacy, trespassing in their home, stealing their food.

This argument is frightening for two reasons. First, it must reject the notion of parental responsibility in order to succeed. Second, in spite of that weakness, people in high places think it’s compelling. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing in the North Carolina Law Review, has admitted that Roe v. Wade was deeply flawed, and instead quoted the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in support of abortion. Women get pregnant, she argued, men don’t. Abortion gives women a shot at equality. She then cited Thompson for support.

The responsibility a mother has toward her child supersedes any claim she has to personal liberty. If it doesn’t, if Thompson’s and McDonagh’s arguments succeed, then release Susan Smith. Release the deadbeat Florida tourists. If parenthood is an act of heroism, if mothers have no moral obligation to the children they bear, if child-rearing is a burden “above and beyond the call of duty,” then no child is safe, in the womb or out.
[1] Judith Jarvis Thompson, “A Defense of Abortion,” Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1 (1971), p. 47.

[2] Note the appeal to moral intuition here.

[3] Philosophers call heroic efforts “supererogatory acts,” behavior that is not obligatory, but is praiseworthy if done, like a soldier throwing himself on a grenade, sacrificing his life to protect his comrades.

[4] Eileen McDonagh, Breaking the Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent (New York, Oxford University Press, 1996).

[5] Quoted in Nat Hentoff, “The Tiny, Voiceless Enemy Within,” Los Angeles Times, 2/3/97, B-5.

ar_basin on October 20, 2006 at 10:23 AM

I got to see the Vent.

I got to watch Bethany.

I bid on the book.

My work here is done.

Oh well, off the the thinkprogress site to torture a few moonbats!!

BacaDog on October 20, 2006 at 10:27 AM

Kudos to Bryan and the ladies of THE VENT. You are taking vlogging to new places and we like that. Keep up the good work.

realVerse on October 20, 2006 at 10:55 AM

Wow. My respect for KP has gone up several notches after watching that. Thank God not all Dems are like her, or Republicans would be in totally serious trouble…..wait…maybe that would not be such a bad thing, given how they have behaved over the last few years.

Awsome vent, as always, but better than most. Strange, one of my favorate talk radio hosts refuses to talk about abortion on his radio show. It is absolutely off limits. I wonder why? Is he afraid someone would make a good point that would counter his position? I like the guy, and listen to him all the time, but I will never understand his position on never talking about abortion.

Keep it up ladies. You 4 do a wonderful job showing what a civil conversation should be like.

MalkinFan on October 20, 2006 at 11:09 AM

BTW:
LaShawn had a great lead-in, Mary K. made some good comments at the end, but Michelle and Kirsten pretty much took over the discussion. Not that this is a bad thing… but there are 4 of you.

Lawrence on October 20, 2006 at 11:23 AM

This was your best View with a Clue to date. Cogent, on topic and with some depth and breadth in the discussion. Also, the topic was a bold choice- great work.
Future Topic suggestions I think would be compelling content: Your favorite female leaders in the US( political and otherwise)… a quasi “Hot Air Hall of Fame”
And, I’d love to see you dis, talk, rant about your “Hot Air Hall Of Shame”

Also, how about a discussion on feminism and it’s tacit/implicit support of the liberal agenda in schools and how that NEA directed system is falling our children.
Lastly, I’d love to hear more about each of you personally- and how your upbringing, and present life effects your core values, ethics and choices- both what you blog about- but how you run your personal lives. It requires risking some self disclosure on each of your parts but I think your audience would find it tremendously instructive and compelling- I know I would
SM

c1scott on October 20, 2006 at 11:35 AM

Wonderful episode! One of the most civil, logical, balanced discussions of abortion I have seen in a long time. Speaking from personal experience and knowing this is a hot topic for me personally, it isn’t easy to maintain your composure in the face of someone calling an unborn child a ‘parasite.’

The idea of calling the embryo a parasite actually reminds me of something else that I’m sure is going to bring a strong reaction. I think it is a way of cauterizing the conscience, psyching oneself up to do something that so diminishes the value of human life. It reminds me of chanting ‘God is great’ a couple of times before triggering a suicide belt.

Jonathon on October 20, 2006 at 11:39 AM

Now I’m beginning to understand why I never watch daytime TV, especially programs with all-female hosts.

Here we have four highly intelligent, informed, worldly women, and yet all they talk about is what I’d expect any group of women to talk about when they’re gabbing among themselves: pregnancy, babies and abortion.

What a waste. I kept wanting to see the camera pan out to reveal knitting needles and balls of yarn on the coffee table. From now on, I’m referring to Fridays not as “The Vent” but as “The Sewing Circle.”

On the bright side … nice dress, Michelle.

Oh, and by the way, isn’t today Michelle’s B-Day? If so, I’m rather shocked that I seem to be the first poster here to take note of the fact. So, unless I’m off on my calendar … Happy Birthday, Michelle!

Spurius Ligustinus on October 20, 2006 at 11:43 AM

Excellent. An enjoyable and intelligent discussion.

I agree with the comment(s) about sound quality: LSB was too loud and the others not quite loud enough. Also, MKH was too often only partly on screen. Way, way bad. :-(

By all means, do please invite Bethany to join The Vent. :-)

And keep up the great work!

ELCore on October 20, 2006 at 11:47 AM

Another great vent ladies!! I’m fairly conservative with my political views but I’m so glad Kirsten is there to balance things out and its so great that all the ladies seem to honestly enjoy each others company. It also doesnt hurt that Kirsten and Michelle were very beautiful today (as usual). Anyways, I can’t wait till next week! Keep up the great work!

Pestilence on October 20, 2006 at 11:50 AM

sorry; those can be respected even as you disagree with them. Out-thinking my typing there :)

Mike O on October 20, 2006 at 12:01 PM

Bravo! Bravo! An absolutely fantastic Vent. Can’t wait to see the gun range episode. Because if KP shoots as staight as she did today, then the target will have a big hole in the center.

Keep up the great work Hot Air staff.

JohnnyD on October 20, 2006 at 12:23 PM

Dalewait,

I posted the whole article since I didn’t want regrets at not posting it. (btw, it’s not my argument or counter argument - I merely posted it)

Also, I’m dealing with media types, at Hotair, that probably have moved on to other news… they know a little about a lot…

It was humorous that the Vent was reminiscent of a debate that I did have many times over. That was in undergrad in the 90’s.

*******************

I don’t like this talk about “choose, choice, responsibility, condoms, you had the sex so deal”.. I don’t think that resonates with many people. Sure you’d pick up a few followers.

I like discourse that goes to the heart of the issue which is personhood. From here - as this is question - the next best thing to discuss would be attributes, qualities, abilities and maybe location of a fetus. And all this in comparison to its counterparts - i.e. adolescents, adults, senior, the extremely senior that don’t look like us, the comatose, the unconscious, those that sleep heavy and unmoved - a deep sleep, etc.

Well IMO.

ar_basin on October 20, 2006 at 12:25 PM

I think one of the reasons KP seems so vocal is that maybe she doesn’t get this opportunity with the folk she normally hangs out with? I mean, with their penchant to shout people down? Just a theory. Great Vent. I agree with all comments on the audio quality. That should be easy to fix, guys…

Sacwannabe on October 20, 2006 at 12:35 PM

I watched this vent before leaving for work this morning and haven’t had time to properly comment.

I’m sure KP is a nice person, but it amazes me to think that someone who is anti abortion (murder) can think that a baby being murdered and is first called a parasite or tick by the “mother” is worse off than a baby who is murdered by a “mother” who really “struggled” with the decision. Believe it or not, but in both instances the BABIES ARE BEING MURDERED by their so called “mothers”. Get a grip people. Wipe the freakin drool off your faces. At the least the mother who refers to her child as a parasite, openly hates her child before killing it. Unlike the mother who “struggles” with the decision just kills her child for the hell of it. Selfish people make me sick. It’s time to start looking at this from the children’s “view”. Their voices are stifled by their so called “mothers”.

wytammic on October 20, 2006 at 12:39 PM

Some thoughts:

clump of cells
uterine tissue
embryo
fetus
parasite
[anthing but baby]

These are ways of de-humanizing (the nearly-as-bad intellectual cousin of demonizing) unborn children.

As far as I am concerned, leftists (esp. pro-abortionists) are demented. (Consider, sociopaths are capable of appearing normal mnost of the time.)

Great episode!!

Life begins at conception. Why? Because at that point, a person is genetically identifiable as having the full set of genes that defines them as being human. Viability is not an issue because it is based on context. For instance, no one is “viable” on the moon. No human is viable at the bottom of the sea. But a newly fertilized egg is viable in a womb.

urbancenturion on October 20, 2006 at 12:42 PM

So, what shall we call these ladies?

A) The Fantastic Four

B) The Dream Team

C) The Four Queens

D) All of the above

My choice: D) All of the above

Dodo David on October 20, 2006 at 12:53 PM

“You save the whales, you save the seals
You save whatever’s cute and squeals
But you kill ‘that thing’ that’s in the womb
Would not want no baby boom
Good, bad, laugh and scorn
Blame yourself for kiddie porn
Convenience is the law you keep
And your compassion’s ankle deep”

Drtuddle on October 20, 2006 at 12:58 PM

I implore E L Fredrick and aelhues to re-evaluate their stated position. KP is PRECISELY what we need as chairmen of the DNC (instead of Howard Dean). I fear that you have fallen into a defeatist-siege mentality. We NEED to go on the offensive — NOT cower in the safe confines of the Republican party. Nothing would make me smile more than to be able to run for public office as a conservative Democrat (yes, I know that this is currently an oxymoron). Try to envison a future where the Michael Moores and the Howard Deans no longer have ANY place to hide. I want to put them “on the run” in total retreat and sheer panic, so that they no longer have a political party that they can call “home.” I want them to feel like the entire world (INCLUDING the Democratic party) is FILLED with conservative seek-and-destroy Terminator robots. I want them to be afraid. I want them to be very afraid. Okay, so I am sounding a little crazy at this point. But when people reject love and refuse to listen to reason, fear is just about all that there is left to “bring them around”. Nearly three thousand years ago, Solomon wrote in the Proverbs that “Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.” Since extremists on the left do not love God (or even believe in God), I want them to FEAR Him. If THAT is what it takes to make them re-think things, then so be it. ‘Nuff said.

CyberCipher on October 20, 2006 at 1:08 PM

Good Job Ladies!

Altura Ct. on October 20, 2006 at 1:16 PM

Well once upon a time I was pro-choice myself and thought it was a “private & personal matter”; that changed when I had one. My life has never been the same. The irony is is when I did get married it took a long time for me to get pregnant and then we had a child with Down Syndrome. I was never able to get pregnant again and we adopted a little boy late last year here in HI. I know a few women who’ve also had abortions and one says she’s proud of her choice but sees a shrink twice a week. The other’s are like me and this “choice” is never far from our minds-especially when we see children who would be the age ours would be. I was a coward, didn’t think it would be a big deal, was afraid even at 32 to tell my parents, being worried about losing my teaching job and not having the the will to be a stronger person and give my child up to one of my cousin’s who was desperately trying to have a baby during that time and who eventually adopted. As I said the irony is is we now have an adopted child ourselves, something we probably don’t deserve.
As usual this is the Vent I look forward to each week. I enjoy the ladies and their conversations. They are genuine and do care about their views without running and smacking people down like Rosie does. I really wish this would be a show once a week on Fox. I think it’s a great weekly event!
Thanks for doing this!

Catie96706 on October 20, 2006 at 1:26 PM

Hello HotAir!

My first post. It’s a privilge to be here and I will endeavor to post accordingly.

Great Vent on a “taboo” topic.

When I encounter liberals…or strident Pro-Choicers (likely one and the same) and the abortion issue comes up, I like to surprise them by stating that I am Pro Choice. The looks on their faces are priceless…they get giddy and start to make plans to parade me at their soirees and art viewings (where posers go to be seen rather than appreciate art). They want to parade me as the “Pro Choice Republican” and thus feel better about their decisions in Life (Life is capitalized for the irony…)

Then I describe what I mean by Pro Choice–and the ladies of the Vent touched on this. When I describe what I mean by Pro Choice the Liberals’ faces change in an instant. They contort into hideous shapes of shock, hate, and disgust. But more often than not, their faces reflect fear. Fear of logic. Fear of responsibility. Fear of accountability. And most of all—fear of moral behavior—i.e. the act of deciding between right and wrong, and knowing that sometimes we all fail in those decisions and pay the price.

What is the defintion of Pro Choice that so rankles the Left Bank Sophists?

In short,

You have a choice before you have sex.
You have a choice when you are having sex.
You have a choice between many kinds of contraception (including abstinence *gasp*).
You have a choice after sex.

YOU made the choice to risk pregnancy. This goes for the man AND the woman. The man makes the choice to risk conceiving a child when that is not his goal–and in making the choice to risk that, he assumes all related responsibility for the child and the mother. The woman makes the same choice and bears the same responsibility.

Let’s leave the act of killing off “inconveniences” to our radical Islamic friends—you know, Michael Moore’s “Minutemen” (pun intended). Mkay?

To the inevitable Liberal who will raise the specter of rape and incest I say: Those are special and sensitive cases, and should not be exploited in your pursuit of a society lacking in accountability and morality (a.k.a. a world where your failings are heralded rather than scorned).

– Montana

Montana on October 20, 2006 at 1:51 PM

Barring a network timeslot, “The Vent” should be at least a PBS offering. It could be a counterweight to “To The Contrary”.

KP + boots= major distraction. Me likey!

kevcad on October 20, 2006 at 1:52 PM

Great Vent on a “taboo” topic.

This is my first post on HotAir–it’s a pleasure to be here (I submitted this post once already and it didnt seem to take–hopefully it won’t end up duplicated).

When I encounter liberals…or strident Pro-Choicers (likely one and the same) and the abortion issue comes up, I like to surprise them by stating that I am Pro Choice. The looks on their faces are priceless…they get giddy and start to make plans to parade me at their soirees and art viewings (where posers go to be seen rather than appreciate art). They want to parade me as the “Pro Choice Republican” and thus feel better about their decisions in Life (Life is capitalized for the irony…)

Then I describe what I mean by Pro Choice–and the ladies of the Vent touched on this. When I describe what I mean by Pro Choice the Liberals’ faces change in an instant. They contort into hideous shapes of shock, hate, and disgust. But more often than not, their faces reflect fear. Fear of logic. Fear of responsibility. Fear of accountability. And most of all—fear of moral behavior—i.e. the act of deciding between right and wrong, and knowing that sometimes we all fail in those decisions and pay the price.

What is the defintion of Pro Choice that so rankles the Left Bank Sophists?

In short,

You have a choice before you have sex.
You have a choice when you are having sex.
You have a choice between many kinds of contraception (including abstinence *gasp*).
You have a choice after sex.

YOU made the choice to risk pregnancy. This goes for the man AND the woman. The man makes the choice to risk conceiving a child when that is not his goal–and in making the choice to risk that, he assumes all related responsibility for the child and the mother. The woman makes the same choice and bears the same responsibility.

Let’s leave the act of killing off “inconveniences” to our radical Islamic friends—you know, Michael Moore’s “Minutemen” (pun intended). Mkay?

To the inevitable Liberal who will raise the specter of rape and incest I say: Those are special and sensitive cases, and should not be exploited in your pursuit of a society lacking in accountability and morality (a.k.a. a world where your failings are heralded rather than scorned).

Montana on October 20, 2006 at 1:54 PM

Montana,

Excellent post.

Ask the “inevitable liberal” how many they know who got their abortions because of rape or incest vice just making a poor choice. I’m sure you won’t be surprised.

Again, excellent post.

rightwinger3 on October 20, 2006 at 2:19 PM

Drtuddle is a Steve Taylor fan. Cool.

If we could get Bethany,Atlas,and Sister Toldjah in the group that would be…awesome.

Planned Parenthood will never offer “a choice”. Remember it started as organization promoting racism and eugenics.

vcferlita on October 20, 2006 at 2:22 PM

Oh man. It’s MM’s birthday. Happy Birthday!

vcferlita on October 20, 2006 at 2:26 PM

Great vent. I am with Powers on the point that I cannot understand someone calling life a parasite (college students exempted), when does it become viable? However calling all abortionists murderers is also extreme. A young women, several years ago has an abortion and we should give her life imprison for pre-meditated murder? I don’t think so. There is a common ground, but we need to keep the extremists out of the debate.

right2bright on October 20, 2006 at 2:56 PM