Why don't you listen to the actual audio here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUkbuhXzbvI

and then go read the transcript at National Review.

Most of the gibberish you're talking about is coming from none other than Barack Obama when he was a Illinois State Senator.

Someone needs to ask the President of the United States why he felt compelled to cover for abortionists who perhaps made a wrong diagnosis, and used an infanticidal abortion technique, rather than advocating additional medical attention for the US citizen.

The born alive legislation is analogous to asking an assassin to call for a medical team after his target fails to die immediately.

Actually, if I and others were on the verge of overturning the abortion laws in this country it would matter a great deal to you. Roe was passed by judicial fiat, not through the legislative process.

You obviously have reasons why you think the way you do about abortion, and perhaps I touched a nerve. You might think differently if your child was killed and you were legally powerless to stop it.

Thank you for being gracious in your responses to me.

Early stages of pregnancy?

At what point in time are you opposed to abortion and why?

Thank you.

You're right. I do not want to see more abortions.

Your list of excuses is poor. We don't kill people because they are poor, or inconvenience us. We don't kill because others require us to be obligated or be responsible for them.

Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. Biologically, the unborn are scientifically, irrefutably, human beings. Philosophically, differences of size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency cannot reasonably serve as a basis for treating them differently from other human beings. Abortion, an act of extreme violence against an innocent human being, is ultimately an expression of "might makes right", because many states, including California, acknowledge that it is murder to kill an unborn child, but allow it based on the sole consent of the mother. So a mother can legally murder her own child. This stands as the sole exception to the murder laws, and the primary basis is bodily sovereignty of the pregnant woman.

Intent is the basis for much of our law. Murder is murder because of intent. Additionlly, obligations and responsibility are paramount to the very fundamental basis of our society. Without them, there is utter anarchy. Sexual intercourse brings together all three factors: intent, obligations and responsibility. If that were not so, then rape laws would have no meaning.

Abortion rejects all obligations and responsibility to the child who resulted from the intercourse - it is a pure "might makes right" judgement. And the primary influential factor is how much the child is wanted. The sex is wanted, but the highly probable result - the child, isn't.

So, I have 3 questions for you:

1. Should the male have any responsibility given he impregnated the female?
2. Why aren't men charged with manslaughter for their role in the abortion death of their unintended child?
3. Do you ever want to be subjected to a "might makes right" judgement? (Put another way - should all humans suspend our obligation and responsibility to be merciful to each other?)

I'd rather have you explain your understanding of what "unintended" pregnancy means. I understand it's not deliberately getting pregnant, however you're pointing at that as being at the root of the problem. I'd like know what you believe to be the essential reason for that being a problem.

"A woman gets pregnant, decides for whatever reason she doesn't want to carry the baby to term, and this supports the argument that blacks are targeted?"

Pregnancy (being with child) is a medical condition, that in all 50 states can only be diagnosed by a doctor. Except for extremely rare circumstances, almost all naturally continuing pregnancies are about a growing child - the timeline is measured in gestational period, although you'll find abortion clinics using the term LMP - which is dating from last menstrual period.

Not carrying a pregnancy to term is thus about killing an existing child - the point being made by TooManyAborted.com.

Using the word "forcing" mischaracterizes what is being discussed in the article, which is about a systemic campaign to highly influence the black population to self-eradicate. (The term for that is auto-genocide).

However, one could make the argument that if a particular culture was convinced of the benefit of killing their own children, then that culture would shame/coerce - "force" those who were pregnant to "benefit" everyone by aborting/killing her own child.

The evidence for that reasoning was provided in the form of historical documentation, statistical records, and even in the form of denial. At the very heart behind "Planned" Parenthood is the mindset that killing existing human beings is beneficial/good for the community and profitable for the company.

Does this clarify things? Do you think this is morally wrong?

Could you explain what you mean by "unintended pregnancy"? Thanks.

Am I understanding you correctly when you state that it's simply a choice when a mother decides to kill her "baby" - (your word)? What else could terminating a pregnancy mean? Why not allow women to terminate their toddlers?

A polo match on the telly and not a game? This is not reality.

Actually, when I first hit the page I was confused, because it looked so much like the NYT or a legit news source. Hard to tell nowadays given the diversity of sources.

I think the creative team assumed people read web pages like they read linear books or distinct newspaper articles, but not everyone does that. I'm used to rapidly scanning context to see if it's worth a longer read, and if not I click away. This was just confusing because I trusted Michael, and he's been very sincere on transparency and trust.

So when I finally read Michael's customized paragraph I got the joke, but I really had no idea it was an automated joke because nothing showed up before I closed the page.

Perhaps after continually being on-guard to protect against Internet theft, with Ponzi schemes, the financial and economic meltdown and with state and federal politicians that say one thing then do another, I've grown too skeptical. Apparently I'm not the only one.

My 2¢.