All issues of abortion aside, I'm just looking forward to seeing another round of Democratic senators who barely made it through college get TAKEN APART by a truly educated and judicially solid nominee (just like John Roberts). I guess Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, et al don't realize how ignorant and immature they sound when they get schooled over and over by these nominees. Man, they should put this stuff on pay-per-view. Let the games begin!

Normally I try not to respond to such obvious flamebait. I wouldn't do it in this case either, if I felt anyone had adaquately articulated my point of view.

I'll pretend that your questions are honest.

Let's examine your argument. You claim that a fetus, even a week old, is a person, a baby, you say, no different from a toddler who is already born. In your inflamed rhetoric, you say that aborting a fetus is no different from killing a toddler.

Well, if you really believe that, do you believe that women who have abortions should be given life imprisonment without parole? Or perhaps executed (think of the irony in that)?

If not, why not? Is it because you realize that abortion is really more of a personal matter, than it is a matter that the state should involve itself in?

Roe versus Wade is actually a very well reasoned and balanced decision. The court did not say "you can kill the baby right up until the moment before it comes out of the momma." It has been a while since I read the full decision, but I have done so, and I suggest you do so as well, if only to get a grasp of the issues you throw around so casually in your obvious and easy ignorance.

What they said was that in the first trimester, the bundle of cells we call a fetus is not recognizably human, and could not possibly survive outside of the mother's body. Do you dispute that point? On what grounds?

Therefore, they reasoned, it is disingenuous at best to suggest that first trimester fetuses are human, and the mother's right to control her body wins the argument.

HOWEVER, they further wrote, in the second and third trimesters, the fetus begins to actually resemble a baby, with a heartbeat, a brain, limbs, autonomous movement, response to stimuli, etc, and it is reasonable to say that it is human. Therefore, they left the right to restrict abortions in the second and third trimesters in the hands of the states, as long as the life and health of the mother were given consideration in the legislation.

Many many people don't understand the decision at all, on both sides of the argument, thinking that Roe v Wade gave the right to unrestricted abortion carte blanche. It didn't.

I'm very liberal myself, but even I have problems with 2nd and 3rd term abortions, and feel they should be restricted. Admittedly, this is anecdotal, but nearly every one of my liberal friends feels the same way. That's what you don't see. You think that we don't see your side of the argument. We do. Throwing around blanket accusations of murder doesn't help your case at all, it just makes you look like a nut to other reasonable people like me, whom I would wager make up a majority of the American public.

Looking this up, it's not clear whether the winning Boston team in 1903 was the Pilgrims (MIStupid.com), the Americans (Encarta) or the Red Sox (ESPN.) But, the point is, Boston won -- winning isn't evenly distributed among the teams. Boston's won 7 times, the Red Sox 5 (by Encarta's count.) Another team has won 26 times, and the other teams in the same city 8. Furthermore, as the Braves left for Atlanta and the Dodgers for San Diego, the Athletics were in Philadelphia until 1954. While for the last 52 years Philadelphians have only had one local choice, their city did win the World Series 5 times with the Athletics.

So, if we take Boston, the Philadelphia Athletics, and any baseball cities that happen to fall in between, we account for 46 of the 102 world, um, seriesses.

If you allocate the 54 (less the strikes in 1904 and 1994) left evenly among the 47 remaining states, you'll get about one per. But, a district took it once, in 1924, and foreigners took it in 1992 and 1993. And, there's more lumpiness. Pittsburgh -- another Pennsylvania city -- the post-Brooklyn Dodgers, the Cincinnati Reds and the Detroit Tigers each won another 5 times, and St. Louis 9, leaving only 22 games to spread among however many teams are left.

So, the Phillies aren't unlucky. They've just never been dominant.

Hate does not drive me. Love does. Love of little bitty unborn babies (fetuses), love of even the most craven criminals (yes, I'd vote to save the life of a murderer- since ALL murder is wrong and two wrongs don't make a right, love for the lives of older people who need life support- it's all about love.

I haven't donated a kidney yet, that's true. Need one? Let me know. I'm not going to carve one out of my side and put it up on EBay, but if I still have two kidneys, does THAT make me a hateful person?

You and I could debate where life starts, but I'm sure that if you and I were looking at a sonogram of a five month old unborn child, neither of would say it was just some blob of stem cells. It's a child. A life. You, as a woman, have the legal right to kill that child. As a man, you seem to think I have NO concept of that. Like we're not just different genders, or even different species, but like we were from a different planet.

Come on! I don't have your cycles, I don't have breasts, but my brain is no less functional than yours. Or have you conveniently categorized me, like you conveniently categorize unborn children.

Labeling me, or labeling an unborn child, is not a marketing ploy. It's a political ploy.

As a man, I have no interest in a special legal definition that allows me to kill. Why do women think that their special right to kill children is sacred. It's not. It's killing.

Men kill, women kill. I'm against it all. I'm against all killing, because I have love for people, for God, for the future.

I have a daughter, she's a joy. I could have another two children, but at the time, I agreed with the mother's decision to kill them- but really, we were both thinking of ourselves, not the children.

Who are you thinking of now? Who do you see when you look at a sonogram.

Who do you want to be? A person of love, or a person of hate?

Do you want killing to continue, or do you want it to stop?

The decision is yours. And every time I go into the voting booth, it's MINE.

Alito WILL get confirmed. Some day soon, your right to kill babies will be taken away. It is inevitable.

Lord people, Bush will be in office until 2009! Guess what? By then, every federal and most state courts and yes the Supreme Court will be filled with people who do not agree that women should have the right to kill unborn people.

Then the conversation will change.