Of course, Ashish - isn’t it just barbaric to give death punishment to a mass murderer! It must be really hurting the Europeans’ delicate sensibilities to see first-hand the atrocities committed by Saddam because they might have to end up admitting it was a good thing he was removed.

I don’t know what to really think of people who actively oppose dealth penalty against mass murderers but don’t even pause for a second before supporting abortion (even late-term abortion).

It isn’t a baby unless you can see it, I guess. I am not 100% for or against abortion and see a lot of gray areas - especially as you get later in the term and the chances of the baby’s viability outsode of the womb increase.

I could see my baby’s tiny heart beating at 12 weeks, when it is not even considered late-term. I could actually feel him moving around at 12 weeks - I really wonder what would be the percetage of women still opting for abortion if they were allowed to see the sonogram image of their baby before they go through with it.

The question is not whether abortion is moral or not. The question is who decides for the woman ? Her doctor ? Herself ? Government ?

Mujahid, I definitely don’t want the Government telling me what to do about my life. At some point though, abortion does become murder and murder is punishable by law. Late-term abortions do amount to the murder of a baby that could have lived outside of the mother’s womb by itself - should that be OK just because the baby is killed in the womb itself?

What changes the second the baby is delivered that it gains legal rights? A preemie baby cannot be killed but a baby in the womb of the same age can be legally aborted? How does that make sense? It isn’t all black and white, you know!

My point was how can someone who feverishly opposes death penalty for a mass murderer support abortion rights? How can you value a life of mass murderer above that of a innocent unborn?

And these are the same people who call anti-abortionists fundamentalists and religious bigots? Isn’t blind opposition to dealth penalty for Saddam Hussein itself based on faith and ideology?

Good points, Ashish - often you see that the people who are against the fanatics themselves get sucked into a fanaticism of the opposite kind.

My theory is that liberals (American terminology) believe that rights belong to ‘victims’ only. Not just any kind of victims. The status of the victimhood has to be based on race, gender, color, religion and so on.

Take for example, Jews. As long as they got slaughtered at the hands of Hitler there was a sympathy for them. But the moment they established a propserous state they lost their victimhood. Now they don’t even have a right to defend themselves. Now victimhood has been granted to the palestinians.

There was outpouring of sympathy for Americans after Sept. 11. But god forbid if they do something against terrorists! Victimhood will be taken away from them!


Take the case of Zimbabwe. Blacks are the victims, Whites are the oppressors. So, even if there is a civil war and hundreds of people get killed, property is looted, this is all understandable. Robert Mughabe will be welcome in European capitals.

If terrorists in Iraq blow up old and children then they are making a political statement. They are fighting an occupation. They are the victims. But if Iraqi Govt. (especially if supported by US) decides to give death penalty to the former dictator for mass murder then that’s the sin. See, in this case Saddam is the victim of US-led war. Voila, case closed! Liberals have the simplest plan for justice!

Women are always victims. Not individual women but the womenkind itself. So they have special rights! They can abort a child even in late term. That’s their freedom. They should have the ‘choice’.


Ask liberals if they will support the right of a hospital owner or a doctor to kick out a terminally ill patient on lifesupport if he/she refuses to pay the bill? The situation is very similar to the abortion. The kid cannot live outside the mother’s womb. In this case, patient cannot live without the life support at the hospital. You cannot move him/her. So, if doctors refuse to treat him and let him/her die will they be accorded the same ‘choice’ as mothers? You see doctors are normal, perhaps wealthy people with no signs of victimhood. So they have no rights, they have no ‘choices’!

That, I completely agree with and would add American blacks to the list. They are the darlings of the liberals as long as they claim victim status and rot away in the ghettos. The minute something is done to better their lives like the school vouchers, for instance, it is decried. Strong black people like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are derided as “Uncle Toms” - nope, no racism here. Why si it that just because these two people belong to the Republican party they have somehow sold out? Can’t they be independent thinkers and still be good people?