but SB4609-- isn't this an inherent and to date, intractable part of the issue/debate?

You wrote: "The only controversy surrounding birth control is when and where to teach it, and these are legitimate issues." The issue regarding access to birth control and education is more than a legitimate issue, it is the crux of the matter regarding *preventing* unwanted preganancies -- which, of course, is the goal for both sides of this argument.

It is one thing for most Christians to state that they are not "anti-birth control" (a term that is nearly as odd as being "pro-abortion"), it is another for the vocal leaders of the conservative/evangelical community to come out and state categorically that they are in favor of open access to both birth control and education because it conflicts with their moral positions. Not dissimilar to all of the teeth gnashing over why moderate Muslims don't denounce the extremists publicly -- maybe the true pro-birth control Christians need to speak up...

I think this is one of the things that flummoxes most people who are trying to find middle ground -- if you (global, not you in particular) truly believe that the goal is to prevent these unwanted pregnancies from occurring, the best approach by far is to facilitate access to birth control, and most of the folks who are most vocal about restricting/ending legal abortion are not out in front with that argument. Wasn't it our current President who appointed W. David Hager (vehemently against Plan B and all premarital sex for that matter) to the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs in the FDA? And what about the tons of money devoted to abstinence-based birth control (sic)? These are not coherent approaches.

The end message that comes across is paternalistic -- and inconsistent. And this is what is so frustrating because a coherent approach that embraced sex education and birth control in a positive, non-judgemental fashion would certainly lower the number of unwanted pregnancies.

I thought for a moment I had entered into another dimension with all of this back and forth about the children of presidential candidates and whether or not they are fair game.

This guy can't even come up with his (supposedly) well-thought out positions on basic issues. This isn't graduate level macroeconomics here --- hasn't he thought about any of these things? Prepared cogent answers? Whether or not this is consistent with some pre-senile state, haven't we had enough of this "disconnected from reality" type of politician -- trying to cover up his intellectual or "uncurious" deficits with cute comments?

I fear this lack of candor is more a lack of functioning grey matter and after 8 years of GW smirking and joshing his way through real challenges I would think that we would demand better.

How low can this bar really be set? Do we want a McCain presidency to illustrate just how low we can descend?

JT

but Asher, given the fact that the rest of the MSM seems to spend most of its "McCain coverage" time fighting over who gets to sit on his lap that day --- I don't mind hearing what McCain is really saying when he is actually asked a question. However infrequent that may be.

Good stuff lately, Steve.

JT

There is no reliable statistics regarding abortion rates when it was illegal.

his is why in my recent post I said 'It's the CULTCHURE Stoopid'. making abortions available on demand hasn't succeeded in reducing the number of abortions but it has succeeded in becoming a negative social engineering influence (along with many others since the '50's) that has effectively tended to absolve women of their reproductive responsibility in terms of their own actions.

And where do your "actions" fit in as a man? Are you celibate? Have you absolutely *always* used a condom? If not, I assume you would immediately insist on adopting/supporting the child to prevent the loose woman you hooked up with from having an abortion?

Though you deny being a fundamentalist-- your arguments do seem to focus exclusively on the woman's role, especially regarding blame. Sounds like the their arguments to me.

JT

Your continuing focus on women's irresponsibility with little concern for the guy's role belies your misogyny. Accidental pregnancies happen and have happened since time immemorial -- affixing blame only to women (and cloaking that with their "special" role as childbearers) is ridiculous.

This 50's nirvana you are waxing poetic about was anything but that for most women -- the reason that women seemed more willing to fulfill this pliant, baby-making role you envision is that they had many fewer choices outside the home. And if they were unlucky enough to get pregnant out of wedlock-- those choices became very narrow indeed, while guys could still waltz off.

To choose a narrow example, the professions have been transformed in the past 30 years by an influx of women -- back in your nirvana years, female doctors and lawyers and scientists were the exception. It was these new choices and opportunities that changed society, not some group of bra-burners discovering the "freedom" of being able to abort on demand and deciding to throw their Ortho-nova out the window.

And your claim that contraception is more widely available than ever is questionable -- women still disproportionally carry that burden, especially if they want to use any medical approach. Insurance companies widely refuse to cover (even in part) many of the safer, low-dose pill forms-- meanwhile, your main form of contraception is sitting on every corner store shelf and costs a pittance. Yet somehow, accidental pregnancies are only the woman's fault.

It's the 21st century already -- the 50's (that as julie_bird pointed out-- you were not really a part of) are long gone. Thank goodness. Hearkening for a past that never really existed except in some movies and romance novels is not forward thinking -- kind of like McCain and his ilk.

JT