But you couldn't possibly be more wrong when you say pro-life people are "redefining personhood." That is about as sloppy and intellectually lazy statement and you could ever put together while still mustering enough brain cells to create a thought at all.

No one is redefining personhood. Before the age of free abortions for all, the question was never asked. People don't usually ask questions about the morality of things they can't do. For example, the question "Is it moral to extinguish the sun?" is absurd. We can't do it, so the question is not asked.

It was not until abortions were publicly available that the issue of embryonic "personhood" ever came into being.

By claiming that pro-lifers are trying to "redefine" an issue you are pretending that the issue was somehow settled sometime in the past. Which is ridiculous. Before Roe v Wade there was no point in asking if a fetus had rights, because the only potential right a fetus could have was the right to life, and that was a right it could not be legally be deprived of anyway.

Maybe an embryo is not a person. But pro-lifers would never have had to make that assertion, except that pro-abortionists insisted on drawing the line for personhood somewhere.

Don't you see? Pro-lifers never bothered with the question of when an embryo becomes a person. Abortionists made this an issue when they started saying "this baby has rights, this fetus does not." Once you do that, the other side of the argument is inevitable.

Doesn't anybody care if the ebook is any good? Isn't that what really matters? If you are not going to buy an ebook simply because the name is stupid, doesn't that make you just as silly and shallow as the doofuses who came up with the name in the first place?

Raising health insurance premiums is about as meaningful a threat as a hooker who tells you she's thinking about seeing other men.

Premiums have been skyrocketing since the 1990s. Double digit percentage hikes more years than not. I don't understand why anyone would be fazed by this threat, since we are living with it already.

Insurance companies are slowly pricing themselves out of their market anyway. $12,000 for a family of four. In a recession, it can't go up much more before millions will be priced out of the market. I don't think insurers have enough margin left with consumers to push it up much more. There is probably an absolute ceiling at around $20,000, which is close to 150% of poverty level for a household.

but I am starting to change my mind. I still don't think Obama deserves it, but its their prize, their money. I no more care who wins the Nobel today then I care who won it in 1955 for economics.

But the protests against the award prove the Nobel committee's point. A conciliatory international leader is not necessarily a popular one at home. The easy and low road to popularity is to play the bully. Many people, especially on the right, like a president who pushes weaker countries around.

The right is showing that it would rather see America fail than lose to the Democrats. They want a conservative country or no country at all. So much for patriotism.

Political science classes should study these quotes as proof that patriotism is often used as a manipulating tool to gain power. Conservatives checked out of patriotism as soon as they discovered it no longer suits their political ends.

This award really ruins the reputation of the Nobel Peace Prize, which wasn't all that great to begin with.

What worries me the most is that this award will go to Obama's head. Obama seems to inspire adulation very easily, and conservatives are right when they fret that the worship so freely afforded him could make him think he can do anything.

The last thing Obama needs is another prize on his wall. He already manages the health care issue as if he thinks Congress will bow to his charm and dump the perfect bill on his lap.

I think Obama would behave much better if the respect he commanded were won with more difficulty. Harry Truman and LBJ -- even Nixon -- were better presidents because acclaim didn't come easy.

The crowd has offered Caesar the laurels. What will happen now?

I am tired of your pathetic anti-Catholic bigotry. Even if you are a Catholic, you are still a bigot. This book is not official Church dogma, nor will it ever be. You are just another one of the sorry, liberal nitpickers who finds somebody, somewhere in the entire world of 6 billion humans who is doing something you don't like, then attributes that belief to everyone else you don't like.

I suppose you don't respond to sexuality the way people who might read this book do. Nor do I, but I am not so arrogant as to think that there are other ways to look at sex. Whatever works within a marriage is all right, as long as no one is hurt. For someone who thinks abortion is the greatest gift to humanity since cooked food, it is hypocritical to criticize people for choosing a certain approach to sexuality.

Oh, I get it. Choice is only fine when the choice is the one you would make. Gosh, how could I miss that?

As for dragging Church history into this, why is that relevant? THIS IS NOT CHURCH DOGMA! No one is forcing this belief on anyone. No Catholic is bound to read or follow the views in the book.

This is just another step in your endless quest to make a name for yourself by trashing Catholics.