Me too, Linda. Think he'll do what Akin did on Piers Morgan, not show up when things are 2+2.

I presume you mean a "small government' conservative-which is a point of view I do not agree with, but can respect. How do you reconcile voting for a party that claims to be small government but wants to actually amend the constitution so that government bans termination of pregnancies?

Yes, small government, fewer laws and equal enforcement of those laws, and less federal spending!

And I think you missed a big part of my point. I do not vote for the party. I think both parties are run by and recruit extremists. Unfortunately, the money prohibits valid 3rd, 4th or 5th party candidates to run a serious campaign so most of the time I’m stuck with voting against someone I don’t like rather than for someone I do like.

In this case however, I will be voting for a candidate that I like. I think Mitt Romney is exactly what this country needs today.

I also think this abortion talk is nonsense. There is no way a constitutional amendment to ban abortion will pass. Abortion is not going anywhere. The decision in Roe v. Wade is established law. However, as a fiscal conservative I do not believe federal dollars should be funding abortion and if I were given the chance I would vote accordingly.

Predator (snort), I dare you to make less sense.

You and I both know that this has nothing at all to do with presuming that women are incapable. It's about pandering to the lowest common demoniator for votes.

If anything, th GOP presumes that women are not capable of making a decision that is best for them, and therefore wants to amend the constitution to make sure that their preferred way is the only option women have. Trying to paint this as liberals limiting women's options is absolutely disgusting.

The problem is that removing funding from women's services that also provide services for rape victims (morning after pill, counseling, abortion) removes funding from all the other services that the provider offers. According to the reports of where Planned Parenthood's money goes, less than 10% of it goes toward abortions. No one is saying that abortion should be mandatory. What they are saying is that women shouldn't need to resort to back alley butchers or others with questionable qualifications and treatments to seek needed care. A women's medical decisions belong between her and her doctor. All of them.

And birth control is expensive. (Typically it's not the male partner who buys it...) You're lucky that you've never had to choose between eating and medication, but not everyone has that luxury - especially in the current economy. Ask your woman if she's ever had to rely on a subsidized service for medical care (college counts). Then ask her if she knows anyone who has been assaulted sexually.

You may have already met one of "these poor helpless creatures" and just not know it.

Ed, there's lots to chew on here, but it's all gristle.

1. Yep, the Democrats tried to get the candidate they could beat in this race. That's Akin. That also has nothing to do with this post, so I'm not sure how it's relevant in the context of the debate. Regardless, I concede the point - we tried to get Akin, because we need to hold the seat, and Akin is a whackjob.

2. These are not the extremists in the GOP - this is the party platform. These are the party leaders. This is the mainline GOP, and this is what will be legislated if the GOP wins the congress and/or the presidency.

3. Um, what? Feminists frequently call about against gender-selective abortion. In fact, right wing zealots try to use that as a wedge against their beliefs. Here's a Washington Times (no friend of the left) that states clearly that feminists act against sex-selective abortion:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/31/when-feminists-hate-abortion/

Tiny bits of reasearch help.

Ben- zealotry goes both ways. But a tiny bit of politeness goes far. I've been involved in the Republican party for 45 years and your characterization of it is inaccurate . I try to respect the interest that people take in politics- it certainly beats the apathy that Jim talks about frequently in his blogs. And that includes the discussions/debates I have my Democrat friends.

Are you seriously suggesting that Akin was talking about forced sodomy, forced oral sex, or other non-pregnancy causing forms of rape? Are you suggesting that these have not previously been called rape, or have not been criminalized?

Please tell me I'm wrong.

no Ben I am not talking about that at all- I was pointing out that the definition of rape has broadened to reflect our increased understanding and concern about it and the fact that years ago the topic of rape and discussion of rape were taboo..victims were shunned as were the perpetrators. Is that clear enough for you ?

When life begins is debatable. Less debatable is the idea that one person has the right to force his or her highly debatable idea as to when life begins on another person with a different point of view. To do this--to FORCE others (who are, in this case, necessarily and exclusively pregnant women) to accept someone else's point of view--is neither legal nor practical--it doesn't help to put an end to abortion, it doesn't help in the larger problem of caring for pregnant women or children, it is DEVOlution in social and moral terms. To reject this devolution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice--it is anti-oppression.

"When life begins is debatable?" How about when life ends, is that debatable? Of course not. Your refusal to answer a simple question shows your advocacy for abortion is disingenuous. Any answer you give, apart from conception, will be illogical and seriously flawed. Therefore, you pretend like the answer is unknown or cannot be explained.

We have all kinds of laws that FORCE a particular point of view on us. That is what laws do. So tell me why do you support other laws that exert FORCE on me but not one that protects the life of a child?

As for suggesting anti-abortion advocacy is invalid because it does not address the "larger problem of caring for pregnant women or children," again you use a type of argument that has no logic. I assume you oppose laws that prohibit drunk driving because they do not address the larger problem of alcoholism. How about laws that prohibit the sale of drugs, they do not address the larger problem of drug addiction and poverty. Wait a minute, how about laws that prohibit murder. Do such laws address the larger problems, those things that lead to murder? On and on we can go.

You are just throwing mud on the wall to defend the indefensible and offering zero logic to back your position. To support abortion is to advocate for slaughter of the most innocent of life and, to use your term, is "devolution" at its worst.

So let’s try again, when exactly is it OK to kill a child, and when should it be a crime?

Jaymike, you can go on and not believe in evolution. Then, when you get untreatable infections because antibiotics have allowed microorganisms to evolve, you just go ahead and take penicillin. Then we'll see how unproven evolution is.

As far as when life begins - it's a moot point. I would say life begins at birth. I think a case could be made that life begins at viability - some 23 or 24 weeks gestational age.

The issue is when "preshonhood" begins. An appendix is life in the same way an embryo is life. It's not a person. It can't exist independent of the body in which it resides. You can make no legitimate argument that personhood begins at conception.

There is a long and varied debate over when life begins. I believe that the Catholic church's position for a very long time was the the soul doesn't enter the body until the first breath, thus life began at breathing. Currently, there is a push to believe that life begins at fertilization, before conception (which is currently defined at implantation into the uterus) and others who believe that life begins at conception itself.

Amazing, Ben, that you can take a theory with many flaws and deem it is fact. I have to admit, when I see your train of logic, I am tempted to admit maybe your ancestors were monkeys as you claim. Obviously, I say that in jest, but c'mon, how elitist can you get to declare theory as fact. It discounts everything else you say.

An embryo is the same as an appendix? When was the last appendix to become a full grown adult? Did I miss something? Where are the appendix in your family tree, before or after the monkeys? Silly comment by me? Exactly, but only to reflect the foolishness in your post.

Personhood? That is your standard to determine when the taking of human life is acceptable? Do I understand correctly that you claim it is OK to kill the child as long as it otherwise could not survive on its own?

JayMike--Are you for real? You misstate my positions, and then say they are illogical. To whit:

You say "As for suggesting anti-abortion advocacy is invalid because it does not address the "larger problem of caring for pregnant women or children," again you use a type of argument that has no logic."

BUT at no point did I say that anti-abortion advocacy is invalid because it does not address the larger problems. I said simply what is demonstrably true: anti-abortion advocacy does little or nothing to address these larger problems. You put in the cause and effect, and then you criticized it. Silly.

As to your ridiculous insistence that I am an "abortion advocate"--your recklessness has led you into an absurd, personal, and utterly inaccurate position. Whether or not I advocate abortion (simplistic, stereotyping, moot) is not the question. What I HAVE in fact made clear here (if you read!!) is that WHATEVER I think about abortion, I do not have the right to any jurisdiction over my neighbor's body. Think about that.

And like it or not, when life begins is debatable. And when I say that, I say nothing as to when I (I) believe life begins. Which is less your business now than ever.

Yes JayMike, you missed something.

Ben - A bit off topic, BUT:

Jaymike - you obviously have no clue what a scientific theory is, which is why you talk about evolutionary theory as being "unproved". A basic definition of a scientific theory (that is, one used by actual scientists) is an idea supported by a wealth of facts that describes and predicts conditions in nature. Scientific theories do not become facts, they explain them. By that standard - the theory of evolution is on a sound foundation, supported by over 150 years of research, hundreds of millions of fossil specimens, studies of animal and plant physiology, genetics and on and on and on. I don't "believe" in evolution - I accept it as the best explanation of the facts as we know them today. I find it is easy to argue if you don't know what you are talking about. Yes, you don't have to blindly accept evolutionary theory, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion anyway.

Are you saying that an egg is NOT alive, or that a sperm is NOT alive? What is life???

"What I HAVE in fact made clear here (if you read!!) is that WHATEVER I think about abortion, I do not have the right to any jurisdiction over my neighbor's body. Think about that."

What do you say, I am personally opposed to child abuse but you do not have the right or jurisdiction over your neighbor's house?

So you advocate abortion at any time as long as that is what the woman wants, regardless of the size and condition of the baby? And please, enough with the semantics. You either support abortion restrictions or you do not.

How do you feel about other laws that restrict what a person can do with their body - drug laws, alcohol laws, the seat belt law, medical consent laws …

Let's assume you are consistent (though I am doubting it) and you oppose all laws that restrict human freedoms, in that case you would have two evils. One evil prevents a woman from killing her child. The other evil kills the child. You have to make a choice. How do you defend your evil as lesser?

Oh JayMike, I'm not sure you want or deserve a response from me, but here goes:
I do not advocate abortion. A house is not a body. A child subject to abuse is not--UNDER the law--the same as a fetus inside a woman's body. You can stomp your foot till you crack the crust of the earth, but when life begins remains (this very blog is proof) debatable; your description of abortion as child-killing is not necessarily shared by others. Again, for myself, how I describe abortion is not at issue--the issue is whether or not I have a right to force my version on women who do not share it. What don't you get about that? As far as other laws restricting what we do with our OWN bodies, I have different feelings depending on the different laws and circumstances. If someone wants to abuse alcohol in his own home--I say that's his business. If he abuses alcohol and drives--endangering other viable beings--I am against it. But you are right (rude, but right) to assume I can be inconsistent in my feelings and I can even be persuaded by logic to change my mind. You haven't done that on this subject...

Anyone who states, "when life begins is not debatable" is not worth debating. When life ends is also debatable, Jaymike. X is so because I said so is just not good enough, Jaymike. Everything that doesn't have a mathematical equation to prove the answer is debatable, including life and death. Again though, not worth debating with someone who makes those types of statements.

Thanks, David.

You are more optimistic on that front than I. I think it's vital to struggle and oppose these restrictions before we lose the ability to do so! Regardless, I appreciate your thoughts.

Oh I'm for the struggle--only it helps me to face it and fight when I look at someone like Akin in perspective, against the larger background of human progress which is the real story of this country.

excellent, thoughtful blog R Harrington

Agree 100% on that one R Harrington!!

Good read and nice food for thought, though I don't agree with a lot of it. I enjoyed reading that, R Harrington.

Dave - you're right. There are Democrats who support this bill, and I vigorously oppose their doing so.

The distinction is that it is not the position of the party, or the party leadership to support legislation to do so, and only a small minorty of Democrats do. So, I paint the GOP thusly, because it is the express policy of their party.

And, to be fair, I do not solely vote for Democrats. As mentioned above - I voted for John Hagelin (reform) in 2000. But, I can't vote for a Republican. If they identify with a party that wants to impose their will on civil rights--including the right of same-sex couples to marry, the right of women to choose to end a pregnancy, and to end social welfare programs to the needy to the benefit of the rich, I can't vote for them.

Dave -

It's not that Democarts "want the cost of abortions passed on to taxpayers." It's that we want society to take care of the health needs of our society. I'm all for taxpayer funded birth control and sex education. Unlike most of the right wingm who, if they really wanted to prevent abortions would get behind this en masse - there is true room for bipartisan action that could have a huge and lasting impact on the need for abortions.

These are not fool-proof methods, however.

From a purely economic standpoint - what do you think will cost the taxpayer less: The few hundred dollars for an abortion, or the lifetime of social welfare support that many of these children will need?

Well this is the very crux of the issue, isn't it? If someone truly believes that abortion is a crime, then that person's conscience would dictate that he or she refuse (via voting, and civil disobedience if necessary) to contribute to it financially. But if someone believes that it is not a crime but a long-established medical procedure ("necessary" or not, "convenient" or not--in any case, few would characterize it as something desirable or fun)--and as such it is up to the individual woman to determine whether or not she will have one--then it does belong in the realm of activities (like other health-related activities, like education, infrastructure, etc.) for which the public, via government, takes some responsibility in terms of finance and oversight. It's inaccurate to say that "Democrats want the cost of abortions passed on to taxpayers." Most Democrats DO want to do whatever is necessary to protect a woman's right to control her own body, and in this country, we as a community do our best to guarantee that money does not play the determining factor in whether someone has access to medical assistance any more than money determines whether or not they have access to basic education. And given the current legal status of abortion, I don't think it's fair to accuse the President of "reaching into your wallets and purses again to pay for this," any more than it would be fair to accuse him or any elected official of stealing our money to pay for public education.

Ben - I don't see how getting an abortion affects the health of the mother. And why is it up to society to take on responsibility for actions in which "society" (what you mean is through govt) was not involved?

FindBalance, the entire point of a society is to share strengths to cover weaknesses.

1. Pregnancy can affect the health of the mother dramatically. Think first of all of everyday occurrences: gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, toxemia, renal disease, cardiovascular disease, mental and neurological disorders can all be life-threatening to the mother. This is not opinion. It is fact.

2. If you are saying that society has no vested interested in preserving the health of its members, than you and I have wildly different views on what a society should be.

Jim- thanks for your polite ,thoughtful comments.

During yesterday's "Today Show", Dr. Nancy Snyderman was asked to comment on Akins gaffe. She said AKIN was totally stupid,out to lunch, etc. She was supported by her peers, Donnie Deutsch and Starr Jones. Our family diagrees with Akins. We don't like Romney & Ryan to be smeared by guilt by association. The Obama campign deals in smear tactics. Biden & Pelosi have made several gaffes, but their gaffes are swept under the rug. My wife, an RN, beliefs life begins when a baby has its' initial heartbeat. The "evolution" is "Ontology produces phylogeny." The fetus undergoes primitive to human form during gestation. No government has the right to rule over a womn's body.

Jim, I am disappointed because I valued your opinion and read your blogs with care. I cannot take anyone seriously that states that Pro Choice is equivalent to being Pro Abortion. That statement is a low blow, an easy blow, a false one, and a showing of stubbornness and intentional ignorance, in my opinion. No one is pro abortion. No one.

I find it amazing that the GOP, which professes to be the political party of small government and getting government out of people's lives through less regulation, seems hellbent on persistently passing legislation that regulates the most basic aspects of a woman's biology. That being said - there is absolutely no daylight between the presumptive GOP vice presidential nominee's position on this issue and Rep. Akins.

Joy – to be honest, I don’t know whether Akin’s said what he meant by “legitimate” when referring to rape. When I read it, I interpreted “legitimate” as a question about how “rapes” were counted; maybe sex that was not non-consensual was counted as rape. An example that comes to mind is how the Clinton administration counted people who were over 30 years old and living with their parents as homeless. I offer this as an alternative explanation for you to consider for what Akin’s may have meant by “legitimate”.

Joy – To be honest, I don’t know if Akin explained what he meant by “legitimate” when referring to rape. When I read it, I interpreted legitimate to mean “counted correctly” as rape; Akin may have felt some rapesex that was not non-consensual may have been counted as such. An example is that the Clinton administration counted you as homeless if you were over 30 years old and lived with your parents. I offer this for your consideration as an alternate explanation of what Akin might have meant by “legitimate”.

Am I missing something? Isn't any sex that is not consensual rape?

Dave L - My point is it depends how you count. One wouldn't think someone homeless if they lived in a home, but the people who counted found a way to count you as homeless.

FindBalance: "When I read it, I interpreted legitimate to mean “counted correctly” as rape; Akin may have felt some rapesex that was not non-consensual may have been counted as such." Especially that second part of the sentence, what does that mean? "rapesex"? some rapesex that is non-consensual? Whaaaaaa? Non consensual sex is rape. It is UNDERREPORTED and UNDER counted. Not the other way around, like your strange analogy to homelessness.

Kira,

No need to get hostile. The comment was mistakenly posted twice, and the one that contains "rapesex" was in the middle of being edited. The first post should make more sense to you, although I thought my example was a good one of how things can be mis-categorized when they are counted.

no, still doesn't make sense. "Maybe sex that was non consensual was counted as rape". Uh???

No, it says, "maybe sex that was not non-consensual was counted as rape". Yes, I used a double-negative, so it means that maybe consensual sex was somehow counted as rape. Like a 30 year-old who lived with their parents was counted as homeless.

Sorry that I'm not as articulate as David Nolta. :-)

David, you say, “…the conservative one that tends to FORCE people into one of the two boxes.. “ (don’t forget that Democrats force people into boxes, as well); it seems conservatives are being polite when referring to Pro-abortion as Pro-choice… If you believe in abortion, then can’t it be said you are Pro-abortion? I think so, but you seem to think that’s just a label that is not fair and not accurate. When talking about the subject, you have to call it something…
You, on the other hand, are trying to separate Pro-choice from Pro-abortion, as if there is no relationship between the two. Pro-choice includes a Pro-abortion view, whether you want to admit it or not. The fact is that having an abortion does affect a woman’s body, but it also affects the fetus. You believe that only the woman in question has a right to decide whether or not to have an abortion, but who has the say on the fate (body and soul and life) of the fetus? You also give that to the woman, if not explicitly, then de facto by ignoring it completely in your arguments on “Pro-choice”. A conservative seeks to protect the life of the fetus.
I find it equally amazing, and horrific, that so many liberals who believe the govt should protect those who are most vulnerable in our society would *choose* to turn their back on the truly most vulnerable , an unborn baby.

Find Balance – Not that I want to get in the middle of a never ending battle that has already been decided, but when you say “A conservative seeks to protect the life of the fetus.” I hope you are speaking for yourself. I am a conservative in many ways but this is not something I seek.

I seek to reduce government influence over my life. I don’t want you or anyone else deciding what is right for me or my family. It’s really none of your business.

UglyHat - I am not trying to be condenscending here, but does that mean you can kill one of your children? It is the belief of the conservative (in general) that a fetus is a life. Conservatives do seek to defend the life of the unborn baby - maybe that is an exception in the conservative platform with which you disagree. There are some things you just can't do, even if to your family. I, too, seek to reduce govt influence in my life, but there are some things in which they need to be involved.

FindBalance, Wrong again. Being "pro-choice" in no way SIGNIFIES being pro-abortion. Do I "believe" in abortion? I believe it exists, and I believe that some people believe it is an alternative to having a baby. But whether I believe it is a good or bad or regrettable or convenient thing to do has nothing to do with this argument, and by the way, you are once again ILLUSTRATING the tendency to try to box people into easily-defined but imaginary categories when you ask (and answer): "If you believe in abortion, then can’t it be said you are Pro-abortion? I think so...". I think not. If you have to call it something, you will have to call it something else. Preferably something true and accurate.

Yes, indeed, some people who are "pro-choice" may also be "pro-abortion". Some people (in certain other countries, for example) may be positively "anti-choice" and still "pro-abortion".

Not to be too personal, but I am in favor of accepting what seems to me a physiological fact, that a woman is the best person--better than the government or the public or her best friend in the world or a bunch of men posting on The Patch--when it comes to deciding what to do with her body, period. And you would be patently wrong to say that this means I am "pro-abortion".

David - you diveret the conversation from the real issue by arguing semantics; you are just playing word games. If you can't call something a name, you cannot communicate.

And you continue to separate a woman's right to do anything she wants with her body and terminating a fetus, as if they never have anything to do with each other. A woman has rights over her body, but when those rights overlap the rights of a fetus, it's not as simple an issue as you are saying. I guess that's just another place we disagree.

Guess we both made our points, on to other pressing issues of the day, like the economy.

You can call something a name--but it should be an accurate name. And once again to correct you--I NEVER said the issue was simple...

Keep looking, FindBalance.

David - your description of the issue is an oversimplification, in and of itself. You never address the overlap between the fetus' rights (right now, it has none) and a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her body.

And calling someone Pro-abortion if they believe on abortion is pretty accurate, and describes the situation accurately.

No FindBalance, the oversimplification is all yours. And just because you believe that life begins at conception (still debatable--see above), and just because you think that abortion is murder (as you suggest below), does not mean that you have the right to make other people conform to a regulation based on what YOU believe. UglyHat is my hero for the day, though I hope he doesn't get mad at me for saying so.

David, you seem like a good person and although we disagree on many things – okay, most things, I respect your opinion and your right to express it. And I too appreciate when we do agree. It’s nice to have an articulate ally.

David - Your words ring hollow. "No FindBalance, the oversimplification is all yours". You have not shown that I have oversimplified anything, and you still have yet address the complexity of a woman's right... vs an unborn baby's right to life.

I do agree with you that when life begins is debatable, and that I have my opinion and that it differs from yours. But if you believe that life begins at conception, then terminating it through abortion *is* murder, and the govt (through people) does have a right to prevent or punish it, just like it has a right to prevent or punish a parent from murdering a 10 year old child.

RE "...does not mean that you have the right to make other people conform to a regulation based on what YOU believe..." Frankly, by this logic, there should be fewer, if any, laws saying what one can and cannot do. Maybe you are a Libertarian, after all.

FindBalance--I am a David Nolta, and that's far more interesting. But what I am or am not is not the subject here.

Kim - From one of my previous posts: "I find it equally amazing, and horrific, that so many liberals who believe the govt should protect those who are most vulnerable in our society would *choose* to turn their back on the truly most vulnerable, an unborn baby."

Agreed, Kim. FindBalance (ironic name), the reason is that most liberals find a fetus in the first trimester to be an extension of the woman (certainly can't survive without her) and give that woman the right to make choices about her reproduction. There are 2 sides to this picture and while I respect your right to NOT have an abortion in the case of unwanted pregnancy, incest, or rape, the government need not dictate MY right to make my own decisions.

It is also important to note that when safe, clean, medical abortions are prohibited they will be performed in someone's basement leading to tragic deaths of desperate mothers. It happens in EVERY country that prohibits them.

I agree with you, Kim - the man must also take on a life-long responsibility for getting a woman pregnant. But if child support orders are not enforced they way they should be, two wrongs don't make a right (the second wrong, in my opinion, being terminating the unborn baby).

UH - It's not a dumb argument, especially if you believe a fetus is a living thing; in that case, abortion *is* murder (a word I tried to avoid).

But your beliefs don’t matter to me. Don’t you understand that? That is my point and that is why we have laws and why we separate church from state; because laws apply to everyone equally. Or at least they are supposed to. And this is why I didn’t want to get into this. In general, my point is there are a lot of conservatives that don’t agree with you. Please do not speak for us.

Interesting points, Ugly Hat. I agree that laws should apply to everyone equally to the extent that they can. In the case of having an abortion, it can only apply to a woman, so any law supporting or opposing abortion could only apply to a woman...

My question to you, though, is when is it ok for "my" (and many others, through govt making laws) beliefs to matter and apply to you and all. Obviously, there are times when it is ok, as in laws against murder and rape. I would be interested in hearing your answer.

As for not representing your views on abortion even though you are a conservative, message heard, and I respect your position. I am simply using it as a generality gicing positive reasons, the same as others have made that generality in a negative light.

FindBalance – Multi-part answer, sorry for being so wordy.

Part I – I mean no disrespect but this is kind of a dumb argument too. I’m not saying you’re dumb, clearly you are not. But you’re reaching…actually you are overreaching and it is approaching the ridiculous.

First, the law does not allow women to have abortions. The law restricts the government from intervening in a human beings private matters (in this case, women).

Second, I disagree that abortion only affects women. The decision to have a child or not affects the potential mother and the father, whether the parents are a couple or not. It affects the family, even the extended family. It also affects the doctors, nurses and medical facilities. Clearly it affects the woman the most. It is a deeply personal decision that will likely affect the people involved for many years if not forever. This is reason enough to keep government out of it.

FindBalance – Multi-part answer
Part II – As to your question of when it is okay for your beliefs to affect my life I would say when elected officials write bills that can garner enough votes and the appropriate signatures to make it law, and if and when challenged, those laws hold up in our judicial system.

This is why laws should apply to everyone, up to and including the president. We have a system of rules, procedures, protocols and laws, which allows us to have a successful society. If you don’t like it, work within the bounds of those systems to change it. Yes, it will take a long time. It should take a long time, we’re not running a carnival here.

Which is why I stated at the beginning of this that this is a never-ending argument that has already been decided. This idiot Todd Akin can propose bills to redefine rape or abortion or whatever he wants on behalf of his constituents for as long as he is a part of Congress. My guess is it will never garner enough votes in congress, it will never gain the signature of the president and even if it did it would likely not hold up in court.

It is a waste of time. But that is indeed something our congress is very good at.

Good food for thought, UglyHat. Thank you for the posts.

This whole exercise is a statergy to take the focus away from the 16 t. debt, the lack of jobs, the terrible condition of our country and the path to lead us to Europe as a Socialist, Marxist Republic. It' all about politics.

Who said this is what matters most? Nobody says it must matter most to you. But still, it matters. Your story, which makes that point, was moving, but it left out the part about how Romney is going to fix the economy--and fix it for everybody, not just for people like Romney, whose circumstances, I cannot help but remark, seem always to have been very different from what yours and your girlfriend's were, all those years ago. So it's not the only issue, but it is an important issue. And I for one do appreciate your and your wife's sadness, and give you credit for your bravery in sharing it here.

Not to take away Mr. Postman's "bravery", but its much easier to share super private aspects of your life like that when using an anonymous name and then ask others to share theirs on a public forum... True statement though, we all live with our decisions, mistakes, blind leaps of faith, and calculated miscalculations. Yet they are OURS to live with. Moreover, maybe you wouldn't have been able to get where you are now without those mistakes. Maybe an abortion at age 17, though something you will always lament on, allows you to get 10 extra years of self growth and puts you somewhere you would not have been without it. Maybe then you can raise 3 kids instead of struggle with 1? Again, these are all just mabyes, but ones that I have seen true in plenty of cases.

Hi postman,

I've had to live with the experience. I had an abortion in my early 20s. Turns out you can get pregnant even when using birth control.

How did I feel then? Sad I had to go through it, relieved it was an option, and sure of myself and my decision.

How do I feel now? Same. There's not even a fraction of me that wishes I had done anything differently. There's not a moment I regret my decision. Having a child at 21, for me, was absolutely out of questions, and I'm so thankful I have always believed this for myself.

As Kira has put it, I don't know anyone who is "pro-abortion". No one WANTS to go through it. But to expect women everywhere to have and care for babies they don't want just because someone else thinks it's the right thing to do, or thinks it's what "God wants" is ludicrous to me.