Did it take 8 years of Bush for you to learn how to justify the unjustifiable, or did it come naturally ?

Anyway, thanks for finally pushing me over the brink. I'm not ready Salon again until Joan Walsh is gone.

Glenn, thanks for this.

Ludicrous indeed.As to 'cheapening'... well, I'm not sure there still was room to cheapen the Nobel peace prize.

I'm a European, and like most of us I like Obama. I read the books,listened to the speeches, would have voted for him, would vote for him again. Still, he has done pretty much nothing so far that would warrant any kinf of 'peace prize'.

Frankly, if a "change of tone" in foreign policy is the reason, they should have given him the literature prize instead.

I wish I were a subscriber so I could unsubscribe. In any case I'm gone for good.

One last post and then I'll be gone, because I'm actually supposed to be working, and I am reaching the limits of my proficiency in English (nah, NOT French or German). And I'm only repeating myself

I have no clue as to the incidence of women actually saying sth akin to "screw you, I'm having an abortion". Let's assume it's not high, and definitely lower than the percentage of those who get an abortion early without the guy knowing about the 'incident' at all.

And I hope that one is low too, because you're right: any law aimed at preventing that would be unenforceable. I can see that (see, pregnancy is not just a biological constraint, it's kind of liberating too - the pregnant one gets to choose). So I don't think women have that right, but they definitely have the power.

Does that mean that "5656" can just shout "it's my body and I'll do whatever I want" claiming the moral high ground as she does (liberty, autonomy etc.), without anyone pointing out that, maybe, it's not just about her body ? She may or may not have acted on that, and may or may not do so in the future - but just because it's not prevalent does not mean that we must quietly acquiesce to the idea.

Many things are unenforceable, but just because we can't stop people behaving like like punks doesn't mean we must pretend it's OK. I am just surprised by the apparent social acceptability of that idea.

So again you're right, such a law would be unenforceable and thus 'bad' as a piece of legislation. If we could all admit that this is the only valid argument, and that those who brag about it should be shamed, I'd be a happy bunny.

Well yes, only a woman can carry a baby to term, I kinda knew that. But my point is that this is only a biological trait, and I fail to see why it should restrict the rights of the father with regard to his (potential) child.

Now I understand the fact that pregnancy entails all sorts of consequences, potential inconveniences and health risks for the mother, some of them serious. That is something we must take into account. But the stance "It's my body and I'll do with it whatever I please, now go f**k yourself", which is taken by a lot more people on this thread than I would have expected, is not helpful. Frankly, it's disgusting.

Once more for the record, I'm not pro-life, I am a fervent defender of equal rights.