Full of things I didn't know. Thanks.

The important thing to keep in mind is that the great majority of American males never stepped foot into a frat house. It is a foreign culture to them (and to me).

"Of course, anti-choice groups are freaking out about IntelliGender, which they believe may lead to sex-selection abortions. "We're starting to see higher incidence of aborting girls among ethnic groups who have migrated to the U.S.," Anthony Lauinger, vice president of National Right to Life, told CNN. (In case you're wondering -- no, he didn't go on to identify the ethnic groups in question or cite statistics that may have helped support his claim. And, strangely enough, the head of an anti-choice group in New Zealand used basically the same vague language to condemn IntelliGender in a LifeNews article.)"

All they have to do is quote Broadsheet, which has written several times on sex-selective abortions in China.

Jan. 2007:

"Sex-selective abortion is illegal in the country [China], but widespread, especially in rural areas. And it appears to be getting even more popular."

Apr. 2009:

"China's guy problems only getting worse."

Now, if it could happen with the Chinese, why not with other patriarchal ethinc groups?

. . . also remember the "BABY" T-shirts, with the arrow pointing down?

How do you explain the change? Except that in those days (1960s) pro-life tended to be the "liberal", "feminist" position, and it was the conservatives who were in favor of legal abortion, and now it's the opposite?

"NOW is and has always been a pro-choice organization, and as someone who's spent some time in the pro-choice movement, I have seen "Feminists for Life" infiltrate women's groups."

Not true. NOW came out in favor of legal abortion in 1968, and it was only after heated debate.

And it was NOW that kicked out the pro-life feminists. That's how Feminists for Life started, in 1972.

The 1972 date for Feminists for Life is from wikipedia. Of course, it might not be true.

I do remember seeing their ads in the Utne Reader beginning in the early 1980's.

As we know, 19th century feminists were, without a known exception, pro-life (they called abortion "child murder", forced by the Patriarchy). I really don't know how long this position persisted into the 20th century (most of what has been written about the history of abortion rights is poisoned by the author's agenda), but in fact in the early 1970's the pro-life/pro-choice split cut across ideological boundaries. Many liberals (such as Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson) and self-avowed feminists were pro-life, and many evangelicals and conservatives were pro-choice.

. . . say it all. Well written comments, folks.

And Tobin is surely right about the pleasures of fixing physical things. But doing it for a living is different, particularly if that's all you're qualified to do.

I don't believe that she would really want to trade her life for theirs, and "disappear" her college degree from her resume.

Nor do I believe these guys really would rather NOT have the job opportunities that she has had. She might have been unemployed but she still has more options. At the end of the day there is a bit of "slumming" going on here. And has anyone ignored the fact that she got this job because of her looks?

"Today's column contains some of the most damaging, misguided and downright uninformed advice I have seen from Cary."

I've been a lawyer for 17 years.

The odds of you getting one of those plum jobs that will let you pay off what will be $200,000 (TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS) of debt in less than 10 years is remote.

Only 0.01% of lawyers get those big-firm jobs that pay $100,000 or more the first year out.

To pay off that amount of debt, you will have to be a lawyer for 10+ years -- IF you hold off on having kids.

"You can always quit later." Yeah, right. When you're pushing 40. And a woman who waits that long before deciding to have kids is taking a huge risk.

DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE A LAWYER!!!

. . . and so is your attitude.

Surprised at such a statement from your history teacher, and glad you survived it. Hope it didn't screw up any students.

Yes, teenagers do respect the truth, and the truth is, sex feels very good. And yes, they do need guidance on it, they need facts, knowledge, techniques, and being told that it's O.K.

Most teenage boys want about three orgasms a day. We hear that females don't get that horny until later on. But still . . . if teenagers were allowed to have sex to the extent they naturally want it -- and if we shower them with pills and condoms so that they learn how to do it, like we teach them to drive cars -- that would prevent so much teen violence and later-life neuroses and the world would be a safer and happier place.

. . . while at the same time urging "letting go" and not investigating Bush era torture policy.

"In some Islamic nations, women are restricted in their movements, punished for permitting the exposure of an arm or ankle, deprived of education, prohibited from driving a car or competing with men for a job. If a woman is raped, she is often most severely punished as the guilty party in the crime."

-- from Carter's article

Both seeing self-identified progressives and feminists once again embracing the pro-life position (these seem not to be former Operation Rescue types, but rather former pro-choicers) and seeing Kissling's moderated and respectful response to them. The "new" pro-lifers should go further, as she points out, but at least we're talking instead of shouting.

I've counted three times now when a black person I was with was stopped by the police. And each time the damn fool friend was belligerent and hostile. I kept on wanting to say, "Cool it, idiot!" Fortunately he/she didn't get arrested.

I see both sides and I agree with your take. Thanks.