These types hold implacable positions: no abortion at all for any reason: rape, incest, life of the mother. They are also generally against any means of contraception or STD prevention, like condoms. They can not be dealt with. They are fanatical zealots. They must be opposed with every means possible.

Speaking of Afghanistan, there is an interesting comparison between the waterboarding debate and abortion.

Torture is condemned, it is said, because it involves something inherently sadistic: controlling a helpless person, and inflicting violence upon them. By that standard, of course, abortion is very similar to torture. The fetus cannot fight back. The doctor who is killing it is in control at all times, to the point of death.

Lincoln (who was not particularly religious) once said of slavery: if this is not immoral, then nothing is immoral. When told of a southern truce offer involving repatriation of free black soldiers to slavery in the south, he said he would surely be damned in eternity if he ever agreed to such a thing.

The Catholic biships now opposed to abortion (who, unlike Lincoln, are particularly religious) feel similarly here. Abortion is like slavery, and torture, in at least one respect: all three involve control over helpless individuals, and intense violence in furtherance of such control.

Should we bomb Pakistan, in order ostensibly to save lives here at home? Should we restrict abortion, even if it imposes hardships on mothers who would rather abort? These are good democratic questions. Let the majority decide them both.

Looking at Salon and some rival web sites, several predominant themes emerge:

1. It's important to look carefully at the numbers. The Huffington Post touts the fact that 53% of Americans -- a solid majority -- believe abortion should be legal in at least a few instances. They infer from that a pro-choice majority. But as I said earlier, 60% favor banning most or all abortions, while 37% believe in permitting most or all abortions. The key words are "only" and "few." The 60% crowd includes those who favor "only" a "few" permissions.

The HP combines the strict legalists with the "few" exceptionalists to get to 53%. That would make a better magic trick than a news analysis. I do not see any MSM or progressive publications discussing candidly the 60/37 split.

2. In fairness to Time magazine, their site concedes the general trend toward life (e.g., with ultrasound technology, growing support for "informed consent" laws). I think we'll see the David Gergens of the world -- self described centrists who set much of the tone for MSM television coverage -- give due deference to Gallup's findings, just as Time did. We may hear less about the Republican party being fringified by abortion.

3. There is some discussion that Mr. Obama has pulled the definition of pro-choice to the left, meaning that pro-life/pro-choice labels are obscured in Gallup's survey, even while core support for legalized abortion remains. That contention is not supported, however, by the sub-tallies on specific legalization questions.

Again, support for banning most or all abortions is at a record high of 60%. That's not a semantic pull. It's a substantive difference.

* * *

One final point on the judiciary. As noted before, the Constitution is a social compact. The Court is employed to interpret it objectively. There is no question that support for abortion did not exist in 1789. Or the 1860's, when the 14th Amendment passed. Or 1919, when women began to vote and pushed for Prohibition. Or 1973, when most states banned abortion. Add to that list -- 2009.

The proposition that the social compact -- i.e., the Constitution -- contains within its terms a prohibition on abortion restrictions has never been weaker. Never. This is more than a low water mark. Lake Abortion is now dry.

FTFY!

Now it has GRAVITAS!

Men have always been the "deciders" for women and that needs to change

-- Beep

Tell these women that only men are the "deciders":

http://www.sehlat.com/lifelink/ffl/plgroups.html

http://www.sba-list.org/site/c.ddJBKJNsFqG/b.4009925/k.BE63/Home.htm

I think some of you are unaware that we are no longer in 1985. The scene has evolved.

If your focus remains stuck on just men- the army of women who are pro-life will sneak up from behind and knock your ass down on their way to owning the issue.

Liberals have a really bad habit of underestimating conservatives.

Gender issues are 1 set of discussion points, and by no means are the entirety of a very complex issue like abortion.

It is however often, the issue that leads people to the ultimate conclusion about the legal issues.

Or not.

Most of us have really thought about this from a multitude of angles, for years. Your view of others as "vapid" because they are miles ahead of you doesn't bode well for your viewpoints.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

"Legal only under certain circumstances"

....is not legal only under a few circumstances. If I was asked that question, I probably would put myself in that bucket as that is a huge leap from "Legal under any circumstances" which most people can find a situation they might consider unsavory, and "Legal under no circumstances".

However "all" circumstances is down 6%, and "no" circumstances is up 6%, with the middle only 1% different (which is negligible statistically). That is an odd swing but so be it.

Bring on the bloody dolls and allow the pro choice movement to explain what the implications of the "no" circumstances really means. It means a woman has no rights to herself once she is pregnant. It means a husband has less decision making power than some pastor in another state who doesn't know them and has no respect for them.

Let the Republicans make this a central issue again and let millions of women explore the pro-life movement and discover how they disappear from a pregnancy and are reduced to unnamed, genderless body parts.

Abortion is the cover for what it really is.

I resent Obama’s visit to Notre Dame or any University for that matter. Not because of abortion rights but due to religious rights. Obama or any other statesmen should not go around preaching religious beliefs. I thought there was a law about church and state. Obama is a Marxist; he proved it at Arizona with his address to the students when he demanded they adopt Marxist theology.

Marxist denounces Christian beliefs because it goes against theirs which is to sacrifice individual rights for the good of the mass. Marxist are atheist. Marxism is its own religion; it is a religious belief system that believes it is its higher power. Therefore should fall under the law of separation of church and state. After all, the leftist group ACLU sues under this law daily. If he goes to Notre Dame and preaches his hatred for the Christian beliefs by demanding students become Marxist as he did at the University of Arizona a week ago then he should be banned under the laws of the land. Where is the ACLU? Right! With an acronym that means American Communist Legal Union. They will sue Notre Dame for not becoming a Marxist institution.

Then there should be the main stream media but they like the writer of this hit peace are in love with Obama the messiah and actually think he is going to do something good one day… Don’t hold your breath.