I have always been very impressed with politicians who are able to change their minds about things - and are able to publicly admit it and explain why. This latter part of the scenario is why the "waffler" label never quite stuck to Clinton. Most people didn't care if he had changed positions, because he was good at explaining why. I am curious how McCain would respond when confronted with the question of why he is suddenly an abortion "federalist" again.

And if he thought he had any chance of winning the hearts of centrists, he blew it. Now if Hilary would just blow it too, we could actually have an interesting presidential race two years from now.

I went to Catholic school and many a pro-life rally as a kid, so I think I have a pretty clear idea of the kind of mindset (number one: immature) that anti-choice people have. The thing I have never, ever understood about anti-abortion people is that such a huge number of them will tell you that abortion is murder and then turn around and say it's OK in certain cases. If it's really murder, then it should never be OK - and many anti-choice people know this, which is why you get situations like Nicaragua and (the attempted) South Dakota. At least they are consistent. And thank goodness most people who are mostly anti-choice are not.

That is an interesting theory. I think people who think "murder" in self-defense is OK are really talking about manslaughter. I.e., "I tried to defend myself and I accidentally killed someone." Usually there are other choices that could have been made to defend yourself without killing another person - although you can't hold people responsible for making different choices when their lives are threatened. Because it doesn't usually happen in slow motion; it happens during some kind of struggle. Medical decisions usually aren't like that.

I think the "self-defense" theory in favor of abortion only in cases in which the pregnancy threatens the mother's life is more akin to what happens when a victim in an abusive relationship cannot get out of the abusive relationship without killing the abuser. I think most of us who are not close to someone in a hopeless abusive relationship think that kind of "self-defense" is not OK. Just like most of us probably don't think abortion is OK until we actually know (or become) someone who needs one.

Thanks, Samantha, for reminding the "tough crowd" here of the real topic of the article - that "unprofessional" is just being used as a euphemism for "slutty." I don't think anyone is arguing against the idea that docs should dress professionally for their own safety and economic benefit. Those "illustrations" above the article are seriously annoying. When did journalists start using photographic "illustrations" that amount to clip art? I guess when their professional standards went to hell. I don't think it's wrong to call the NYT on that kind of unprofessional bullshit - any more wrong than it is to call med students on theirs.

The Pope isn't interested in promoting "lesser evils." The Church thinks any sex act that does not imply some openness to procreation is wrong, wrong, wrong. Even if you're married. Even if you are HIV+. All that is just too bad for you. How hard can a sexless life be in comparison with eternal damnation? The Church isn't going anywhere near the contraceptive mudslide until it's time to go all the way to the bottom. If the Pope says something different, I'll eat my hat.

I think we know which ONE Arab nation that means. My hair is standing on end.

is not a statement. If it is true that "Your hand does not lead you to sin, but your heart," then why didn't Jesus say, "If your hand offends thee, cut out your heart"?

I like your Augustinian approach to Catholicism ("Love, and do what you will"), but I don't think they're buying it in Nicaragua or the Vatican. Religion is political, and the Catholic Church has real power in many parts of the world. Even if its fingers don't happen to have closed around your American heart or invaded your American bedroom.

I think you're taking that sentence out of context. The context is a bikini rally that is very likely going to turn into a white supremacist rally. The "no clear winners" comment is about the fact that people could die because of this bikini/veil thing - and not because of the bikinis. Because of racism. Did you read the piece? In our country, I would expect a stunt like this to be more like the nurse-ins at airports that were derided on the comments section last week. I don't think even lactivists would have supported those nurse-ins, though, if white supremacists had wanted to sponsor them. Do you? While they would still technically have the right to nurse in public, this particular instance of group nursing would have become an extremely poor decision. So. I think we all support the choice to wear bikinis, but there's a hell of a lot of baggage that I personally don't quite understand attached to this particular case of group bikini-wearing.

Patricia says "In feminism bikinis are only seen as an instrument of oppression."

I think that is one of the most idiotic things I've ever read in the comments section here. It reminds me of a Gloria Steinem talk I went to. During the q&a, a very frumpily dressed, short-haired woman asked Steinem about her lipstick, soft sweater and colorful silk scarf. Steinem's response was, "The whole POINT of feminism is that we can wear whatever. We. Fucking. WANT."

Maybe Steinem isn't a feminist! Or maybe it's just convenient to use Andrea Dworkin as a whipping girl and thus avoid personal responsibility for one's own standards and decisions.

The whole point of feminism is that we are human beings with complicated ethical lives. Get used to it.