Regarding: "Both sides are fighting a propaganda war, and the debate must be kept as balanced as possible. — vasumurti"

While I appreciate your stated interest in establishing a propaganda-free discourse, I cannot take it seriously when you use inflammatory political terms such as "partial-birth abortion." That term is accepted only in U.S. political discourse; the internationally accepted term for the medical procedure you call "partial-birth abortion" is "intact dilation and extraction" (IDX). IDX, so often invoked in anti-abortion arguments, represents approx. 0.14% to 0.17% of all abortions performed in the United States. The procedure is indeed medically necessary in certain circumstances (for instance, when a third-trimester fetus has died in utero).

Further, it is bad logic to assert that pro-choice people are "pro-abortion." Many of us are opposed to the procedure for ourselves but remain in favor of a woman's right to choose to continue or terminate a pregnancy. Hence the use of the word "choice." Most pro-choice people understand that abortion is not conception's ideal outcome but believe women's access to the procedure is the only way to ensure gender equity. That is, if we (women) can be forced to carry to term all pregnancies regardless of the circumstances of conception and regardless of any physical harm it may cause us, we are not as "free" as men.

Those who oppose abortion access in all cases inherently prioritize fertilized eggs and fetuses at any stage of development over the health and social equality of women outside of the uterus. This is the element of the debate that is too often overlooked; I have yet to encounter an anti-abortion argument that justifies prioritizing fetal health over the health of an unwillingly pregnant woman.

Finally, it is not "medical fact" that "life" begins at conception unless you assume that everyone agrees on the definition of "life." They do not. Until a fetus is viable it is entirely and exclusively dependent on its bearer for sustenance and survival. If you assume a static and universal definition of an abstract term, your logic holds; in my opinion, however, this assumption is not logically defensible.

Confession: I'm (just barely) under 30 and in grad school. Horrors! I must have a giant trust fund and an ego the size of Texas!

I just want to point out that, while I agree with the general assessment that the LW is freaking obnoxious, many of you are making an erroneous assumption re: trust funds and graduate students. I put myself through college (I'm still paying for it), worked for six years within my chosen field, and decided to return to school. I applied only to and was accepted by schools that offer full funding. Currently, I go to school, teach, and work two side jobs. Why? Because this subject is one I've wanted to pursue all my life. Because this is a terminal degree that will allow me to teach as an adjunct should I so choose. Because I am the first person in my family to go to college, let alone grad school, and I feel lucky every single day that I have the time and support to do this.

I'm not alone. Yes, the majority of grad students are from affluent families, but not all of us are. It seems silly to look down on people who are pursuing graduate studies simply because you assume anyone who is doing so must be rich or pretentious. That seems to me just as ridiculous as the letter writer's assumption that people not in graduate school are aimless morons. Categorical judgments don't help us understand anyone.

That's all. Carry on.

#3

*Filler!

Sarah Palin, Inaugural Ball, your credit card

by Deepak Chopra can be accessed at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/mccain-media-meltdown-a-w_b_133799.html

Keep up the good work, Glen; a 24-hour Greenwald network would greatly benefit this election.

I wanted to express my gratitude for Glenn Greenwald's unrelenting coverage of this issue and, perhaps more importantly, the tangible actions he has taken to fight this egregious legislation. As an Obama supporter, I just sent a letter to Bill Burton expressing my dismay with Senator Obama's decision to pull a political about-face and support this bill. Though there is little I feel I can do otherwise, I will be re-routing the (admittedly paltry) funds I've been donating to the Obama campaign into donations supporting those elected officials who openly opposed the "compromise." Salon readers owe a debt of gratitude to Greenwald for keeping us so well and objectively informed. This is what journalism should be.

I am disappointed in Lloyd as well as numerous Salon letter writers for implying (repeatedly) that Obama supporters are universally spewing vitriol against HRC and generating from the "spirit of unity" only hostility and hypocrisy. It is common sense to recognize that the most aggressively outspoken in an argument are those who are the most impassioned - good or bad - about the issue. Thus, some of the most passionately outspoken Obama supporters are obnoxious. Of course, as has already been pointed out, such supporters are absolutely matched in the intensity of their personal attacks by HRC supporters. You know, the ones who accuse those of us who support Obama of being empty-headed, star-struck naifs who lack the sense to watch debates, read policy papers, examine voting records, and generally make informed decisions about who we support as our party's nominee. The loudest on both sides are balanced in their disrespectful behavior, and the finger-pointing is juvenile and needs to stop. Now. I support and will cast my primary ballot for Obama. Should HRC win the nomination, I will wholeheartedly support her in her campaign against McCain.

After 8 years of a destructive Republican administration, I can't understand why we Dems aren't overjoyed to have two admirable, capable leaders vying for the party nomination, and are instead making the Republican party's life easier by petty in-fighting and inter-party animosity.