A Recent Favorite:

Recent Comments

  1. lonecat commented on Signe Wilkinson about 16 hours ago

    I’m sure that you and I can have a fruitful discussion, because we share some fundamental assumptions. I’m not sure sueamrlucan and I can have a fruitful discussion, even though we both, I think, have good intentions. Here’s my feeling. I don’t think that the distinction “living human being” is binary, yes or no. I don’t think there’s one moment when a fetus is still not a human being and the next moment when it is. I think there’s a gradual process of humanization. When all you’ve got is a few cells, for me, no question, not a human being yet. One minute before full term, no question, a human being. But there is no single moment in between which marks the division. So I would say that as the fetus develops, after a certain point you need stronger and stronger reasons to abort. When it’s a few cells, no justification is needed, and I guess that’s how the morning-after pill works. When it’s very near term, only the strongest reasons, such as the life of the woman, could count as justification. And I believe that late term abortions are quite rare. I bet most people who are deciding whether or not to have an abortion make some calculation more or less like that, though perhaps unconsciously.

    It’s perhaps a different question, who does the calculation, the individual having the abortion or the state? I say the individual, because I think its intrusive to give that power to the state. The state can play a role — for instance, it could try to reduce the number of abortions by offering effective birth control, by making adoption easy, by offering adequate support to single mothers, and so on. But when it comes down to the decision, I say it’s the woman’s right to decide.

  2. lonecat commented on Signe Wilkinson about 18 hours ago

    Here’s why I don’t like to argue about abortion rights. You say you believe a fetus is a baby, and I am sure you are being honest and sincere. I believe that a fetus is not a baby, and I am being honest and sincere. Where we go from there, I don’t know.

  3. lonecat commented on Henry Payne about 19 hours ago

    “I see your roof is leaking, why don’t you fix it?”
    “Can’t fix it when it’s raining.”
    “Why don’t you fix it when it’s not raining?”
    “Then it don’t leak.”

  4. lonecat commented on Matt Davies about 23 hours ago

    I haven’t seen that; do you have a reference?

  5. lonecat commented on Mike Luckovich 1 day ago

    It doesn’t take a lot of wit to throw insults around.

  6. lonecat commented on Clay Jones 1 day ago

    The Pope is backing off on this as fast as he can.

  7. lonecat commented on Mike Luckovich 1 day ago

    You say, “I am sure gun laws vary from state to state, but I know for a fact Colorado, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Wyoming, Montana and Iowa allow guns to be in gun shows. Can’t have them loaded and they have to be inspected, but that is about it.”
    Hey, I’m okay with guns that don’t have any bullets. Is that your solution?

  8. lonecat commented on Signe Wilkinson 1 day ago

    Cecile Richards is Ann Richards’ daughter? I did not know that. Thanks.

  9. lonecat commented on Nick Anderson 1 day ago

    Of course my suggestion won’t fly. Here’s what going to happen: Nothing.

  10. lonecat commented on Nick Anderson 1 day ago

    Here’s another suggestion: everyone has the right to own guns, but the guns are kept under lock and key in some central repository. Any time you want to use your gun, for hunting or target practice or whatever, you have to sign it out and say how long you’re going to use it and then return it, or else you’re in big trouble. And anyone who owns a gun outside of this system is also in big trouble.