Since the linked column is a point-by-point rehash of David Brooks' disingenuous trial balloon column back in April 2005, I'll just link my rebuttal from that time period. The short version, if you don't feel like artificially inflating my visits, is "imagine this argument with Brown v. Board of Education."

Instead of "stocking up on wire hangers" or any other planning of murdering babies why not just keep your legs closed and not put yourself in a position where you have to slaughter another human being.

Why does your ilk of feminist even consider yourself to not be subservient to men when you can't keep yourself from humping every guy who instructs you to lay down?

Why should women be considered important and valuable when feminism holds the life of babies in such low regard? If any baby can be slaughtered at the whim of any woman how is any life of any value.

classy comment, lisa. well done. you're doing a stellar job arguing your case.

i'd write more, but i have A LOT of humping to do today.

Wow...somebody has never had an orgasm!

Hey, it is Hump Day, isn't it?

Karabell's argument is so tired:

But if Roe is overturned, suddenly, every state would be forced to discuss and debate, and that would propel the Democrats from defense to offense.

I'm going out on a limb here and guessing the Democrats understand the current lack of abortion access in most red states. But I don't see the party standing up to oppose the onslaught of legislation to chip away at abortion rights. So why is Karabell so optimistic that the death of Roe would put them on the offensive? I'm not convinced.

As far as the Democratic party goes, my views haven't changed since DailyKos tried to convince women it was in their interest to vote for anti-choice Dems.

never mind, also, that if the supreme court were to overturn Roe, I could concievably see them doing it on the basis that the fetus is legally a human/citizen. If this is the case, then abortion would legally be murder, right?

Of course, they could overturn it in a way that would simply just allow individual states to make individual laws. Or they could simply allow states to create more and more rediculous roadblocks, and erode away at what an "undue burden" is.

All three results, would, de facto, be an overturning of Roe (for at least some people).

"Instead of "stocking up on wire hangers" or any other planning of murdering babies why not just keep your legs closed and not put yourself in a position where you have to slaughter another human being."

Because that would require us to spend ALL OUR TIME abstaining from sex. No breaks. Plus it doesn't even WORK if one gets raped.

And it's not "slaughtering another human being." It's refusing to create one.

"Why does your ilk of feminist even consider yourself to not be subservient to men when you can't keep yourself from humping every guy who instructs you to lay down?"

Huh? We don't hump every guy who "instructs us to lay down." We hump the ones WE WANT to hump. Our choice. Therefore not subservient. And as for "keeping ourselves" from humping someone, well why SHOULD we keep ourselves from doing something we want to do, as if there were something wrong with it?

"Why should women be considered important and valuable when feminism holds the life of babies in such low regard?"

Unlike conservatives, we support things that help babies like universal health care, welfare, maternity leave, daycare, and quality education. We actually hold babies (not to be confused with embryos, zygotes, and fetuses) in quite high regard.

And you think we hold fetuses, etc. in low regard because we don't think they have a right to use another person's body against that other person's will? Such low regard! We actually deny fetuses a right that we . . . deny everybody else.

"If any baby can be slaughtered at the whim of any woman how is any life of any value."

Discrepencies regarding the definition of "baby" aside, any baby *cannot* be slaughtered at the whim of any woman. One woman cannot force another to have an abortion; no woman can kill an already born baby. Next time you fashion a sermonette based on what sounds good in your head, you might try checking with reality before you post it.

in this day and age, no one should "need" an abortion. it's fucked up that "anti-abortion" republicans are blocking better health care (like depo and iuds and birth control pills) for all americans, which would be the surest way to stop abortions.

"Instead of "stocking up on wire hangers" or any other planning of murdering babies why not just keep your legs closed and not put yourself in a position where you have to slaughter another human being."

Well, isn't that just the typical conservative, anti-choice argument? Well, Lisa if you think it's just soooo easy for slutty women like us to just keep our legs closed if we don't want to get pregnant, what about the women who are MARRIED and WANT to have sex with their own husbands? Are married women just supposed to cut their husbands off from sexual intimacy? Why is the blame always put on the woman instead of the man? Men are just as much responsible for pregnancy as women are, yet you never hear a Conservative anti-choicer telling men to "keep it in your pants." This just proves my point of what the "pro-life" movement is all about. It's not about "saving babies", it's about controlling women's bodies and sexuality.

...you never hear a Conservative anti-choicer telling men to "keep it in your pants."

Ahem. I have a message from at least one "anti-choicer" (me) to men: Keep it in your pants!

Though I am often accused of not being a conservative.

And everything - from bad mood of the consul to the internal order about decrease in a quota for America could become a cause of a failure.

wow... very nice post!! i really like it

Spa Treatments