See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Broken Masterpieces
2. The American Mind
3. pantyhose pics white pantyhose lonely housewives wearing pantyhose asian pantyhose

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On July 28th, 2004 at 4:04 am, Chad Evans said:

   Wasn’t that Dean’s call during his speech as well? I’m sure it is a coincidence, but that’s strange since it is from Dean.

2. #2
   On July 28th, 2004 at 8:39 am, Jacqueline Byrne said:

   As a pro-life Democrat, and a member of Dems for Life, it’s good to see we’re getting SOME kind of press that acknowledges our existence. We have yet to be shown any kind of respect or acknowledgment by “mainstream” and “trustworthy” press (a la New York Times–*GAG*), and those who may be aware that there are a good number of pro-life Democrats essentially sneer in our direction.

   The Democratic platform was recently modified to state that not only is their view on abortion-on-demand completely unwavering, but that anyone who dissents is a Republican, and therefore, the “enemy,” and ENEMY of women’s rights. I am also a member of Feminists for Life, which is constantly under attack by “women” like Michelman and Feldt–often called an “anti-choice group masquerading as a women’s rights organization.”

   Pro-life Democrats are politically homeless. We are not Republican, but we are excluded from our own party because we believe the slaughter of unborn children is an atrocity–and its unwavering support by the Democratic Party under any circumstances is an embarrassment. It would suit the currently self-righteous, blind, and deaf pro-choice Democrats to not only include us, but to show some kind of respect and understanding, even if they disagree. But this looks like another election in which I won’t be voting.

   Think that’s un-American? Show me a candidate who represents ME. I’ll vote then, but not a moment sooner.

3. #3
   On July 28th, 2004 at 9:35 am, Tim Hanlon said:

   Can somebody check out these facts for me? I believe since abortion has been legal, there have been 30 million abortions of which less than 1% were due to rape, incest, or health of the mother. Yet, you can’t have a discussion with a democrat on the subject without rape, incest, and health of the mother coming up in the first 20 seconds. I’m interested in how a discussion would go on the topic of 29,700,000 abortions if rape, incest, and health of the mother weren’t allowed in the discussion.

4. #4
   On July 28th, 2004 at 9:51 am, Jacqueline Byrne said:

   That’s such a good point, Tim. I’ve gotten myself in hot water by agreeing with Pryor that the rape/incest argument is just a smoke-screen. 93% or more of abortions are performed for “personal” reasons (under the clause of “women’s health”–though these are abortions performed on HEALTHY mothers and HEALTHY babies).

   If abortion “needs” to be kept legal because of instances of rape & incest, doesn’t that make you wonder what’s the matter with a society that is continuously raping and molesting its women? Rape is a huge problem–I know this as a victim of a terrifying sexual assault–but it rarely results in pregnancy. And as a victim of sexual assault, I find it completely insulting that they would use such a traumatizing event to tout the “necessity” of such a disgusting and selfish procedure.

5. #5
   On July 28th, 2004 at 10:36 am, Martin aka Blogbat said:

   Spectacular roundup, Ms. Malkin. Bear in mind of course, the Liberal media will be harping on the need for more Pro-Aborts in the Republican line-up (as if there aren’t too many already). If you for any chance happen to be within earshot of one of those talking heads, please help them with their spin-syndrome

6. #6
   On July 28th, 2004 at 10:52 am, Chris Low said:

   Michelle, See the editorial page of today’s (July 28) Wall Street Journal. Life of the Party, by Melanie Kirkpatrick.

7. #7
   On July 28th, 2004 at 11:11 am, CJ said:

   Maybe a bit off-topic, but I’ve experienced a change in my abortion views recently. Never a Democrat, but I used to be somewhat liberal in my abortion view… it wasn’t really okay for me personally, but who was I to judge others. Then my wife got pregnant.

   She had several special complications that allowed us to have ultrasounds taken every time we visited the doctor (in contrast, many mothers only get one ultrasound done mid-term). Within a few weeks, we saw our baby on a computer screen:

   http://sutherlandmultimedia.com/elizabeth/photos/ultrasound2.jpg

   From then on, every trip to the doctor was like a “visit” with our baby. We watched her grow, saw her suck her thumb, jump around, and could even tell that she had my nose.

   She is now a beautiful 4-month old little girl, and I can’t imagine my life without her.

   http://sutherlandmultimedia.com/elizabeth/pics/f8.jpg

   After watching your child grow from a tiny fetus to a beautiful baby every step of the way, I fail to see any point in time when it would have been okay to terminate her life. There’s no difference between the above pictures… it’s the same person.

   Personally I think women’s health programs need more funding to allow women to get monthly ultrasounds during pregnancy. But this might sway some people to renounce abortion, and the Democrats wouldn’t want that now, would they?

   Thanks for letting me rant.

8. #8
   On July 28th, 2004 at 11:30 am, jack white said:

   Former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn is so outraged by the pro-abortion litmus test he may endorse Bush.

9. #9
   On July 28th, 2004 at 1:51 pm, Jeff Miller said:

   “Science is our side,” Finneran said. Ultrasound technology, with its ability to look inside the womb, is changing public opinion he said.”

   This is the very reason that NARAL and PP have called 4-D ultrasound technology a “weapon.”

10. #10
    On July 28th, 2004 at 3:17 pm, Jacqueline Byrne said:

    It sure is a weapon. And a damn good one. Now we just have to make sure we show actual footage–in color–of an abortion procedure and then let women make up their minds about this “right” to exterminate their offspring at will.

11. #11
    On July 28th, 2004 at 4:37 pm, Lisa said:

    I love what cj said,It’s the same person. i was just on a site where the lib midwife said,it is just a clump of cells. She went on to say that it is her belief that it is not a child until the second it is born. I would love to have her take care of me during my baby’s birth with such a disrespect for life.

12. #12
    On July 28th, 2004 at 5:20 pm, Jacqueline Byrne said:

    Aren’t we all–born and pre-born alike–really just a “clump of cells”? I think reasoning like that is clearly being eroded with all the information we have on fetal development. I mean, you can BELIEVE something; but that won’t change the truth. Pro-aborts reeeeeaaaalllly want to believe it’s NOT a person–it’s never going to change the fact that the unborn are people.