See article inside - very interesting

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Looks like the feminists are supporting Palin. Very interesting article and it explains why they are supporting her.

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/09/06/palin-punditry-you-wont-see-in-the-papers-or-on-the-tv-news/

I'm certainly no McCain fan; however, when I first heard about this possible "controversy" concerning his birth, contrary to this article, I thought it was frivolous at least and outrageous at most, considering his father was a soldier at the time, and I felt it was a slap in the face to soldiers everywhere.

Just as McCain was vetted about this issue, so was Obama, and both men were found to be eligible to run for President.

WASHINGTON: The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

McCain's likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a "natural-born citizen" can hold the nation's highest office.

Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.

"There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent," said Sarah Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. "It is not a slam-dunk situation."

McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of McCain's closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.

"He was posted there on orders from the United States government," Graham said of McCain's father. "If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can't be president if they take an overseas assignment."

The phrase "natural born" was in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to "declare expressly" that only a natural-born citizen could be president.

Duggin and others who have explored the arcane subject in depth say legal argument and basic fairness may indeed be on the side of McCain, a longtime member of Congress from Arizona. But multiple experts and scholarly reviews say the issue has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court.

Duggin favors a constitutional amendment to settle the matter. Others have called on Congress to guarantee that Americans born outside the national boundaries can legitimately see themselves as potential contenders for the Oval Office.

"They ought to have the same rights," said Don Nickles, a former Republican senator from Oklahoma who in 2004 introduced legislation that would have established that children born abroad to American citizens could harbor presidential ambitions without a legal cloud over their hopes. "There is some ambiguity because there has never been a court case on what 'natural-born citizen' means."

McCain's situation is different from those of the current governors of California and Michigan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm, who were born in other countries and were first citizens of those nations, rendering them naturalized Americans ineligible under current interpretations. The conflict that could conceivably ensnare McCain goes more to the interpretation of "natural born" when weighed against intent and decades of immigration law.

McCain is not the first person to find himself in these circumstances. The last Arizona Republican to be a presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, faced the issue. He was born in the Arizona territory in 1909, three years before it became a state. But Goldwater did not win, and the view at the time was that since he was born in a continental territory that later became a state, he probably met the standard.

It also surfaced in the 1968 candidacy of George Romney, who was born in Mexico, but again was not tested. The former Connecticut politician Lowell Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency, an aide said, and was assured he was eligible. Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was once viewed as a potential successor to his father, but was seen by some as ineligible since he had been born on Campobello Island in Canada. The 21st president, Chester Arthur, whose birthplace is Vermont, was rumored to have actually been born in Canada, prompting some to question his eligibility.

Quickly recognizing confusion over the evolving nature of citizenship, the First Congress in 1790 passed a measure that did define children of citizens "born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States to be natural born." But that law is still seen as potentially unconstitutional and was overtaken by subsequent legislation that omitted the "natural-born" phrase.

McCain's citizenship was established by statutes covering the offspring of Americans abroad and laws specific to the Canal Zone as Congress realized that Americans would be living and working in the area for extended periods. But whether he qualifies as natural-born has been a topic of Internet buzz for months, with some declaring him ineligible while others assert that he meets all the basic constitutional qualifications �� a natural-born citizen at least 35 years of age with 14 years of residence.

"I don't think he has any problem whatsoever," said Nickles, a McCain supporter. "But I wouldn't be a bit surprised if somebody is going to try to make an issue out of it. If it goes to court, I think he will win."

Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time.

In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be "unpredictable and unsatisfactory."

"If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain," Pryor said in a recent interview. "But it is certainly not a frivolous issue."

A little long but worth the read - Written by D Morris who used to work for the Clintons and were friends with them.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have always believed that they�re very different than the rest of us. Over their more than 30 years in politics together, they�ve learned one important and consistent lesson: that rules don�t matter. Rules don�t apply to them. Rules are for other people. Rules can be bent, changed, manipulated.

So it�s particularly ironic that they are now turning to the Democratic Party Rules Committee to try and steal the presidential nomination that Hillary has already definitively lost to Barack Obama in the popular vote, the delegate count, and the total number of states.

Now she�ll try to get the Democratic bosses to rig it for her. If the rules don�t work, change them.

Under the guise of justice and fair play, Hillary Clinton is, in effect, asking the Rules Committee to rule that the party�s rules should be ignored � the same rules that the Rules Committee enacted and that Hillary and all of the other democrats supported without dissent. But that was then and now is now.

Hillary wants the Florida and Michigan votes to be seated, even though it would still make no difference in the outcome. She can�t win. After her embarrassing near loss in Indiana and her sound trouncing in North Carolina, Hillary Clinton is a fatally wounded candidate. She�s out of money, out of votes, and out of options.

But she won�t give up. She�ll never go home until the day that Obama actually reached the magic number of delegates.

Because she and her husband both believe that she is entitled to the nomination, entitled to the presidency. So they�re waiting for the inevitable signal that it will, in fact, be hers.

No matter that neither the voters nor the party leaders want her. No matter that she has to spend more than $11 million of her own money to keep her campaign afloat.

According to the Clintons, the nomination should be hers. She�s earned it. She�s ready. She wants it. She and Bill are sure that she�d be a great candidate.

So that�s why they�re waiting. Because there�s one other lesson they�ve both learned � that over time, anything can change. And they�re waiting for any break that time might bring.

They�ve see it before. When they were worried about her criminal liability in the Whitewater mess, they held their ground. Eventually, as the years went on, Jim McDougal, the chief witness against them, died of a heart attack in prison. When the special prosecutor was after her for perjury, she learned how to delay and then get by off on a technicality. Lost in the dust were the allegations of Hillary�s perjury. Once more, time was kind to her.

It was the same story during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. At first it seemed that Bill would be quickly thrown out of the White House, but two years later, although impeached, he was still incredibly popular. Time and patience had brought control of events back to the Clintons.

When they left the White House in utter disgrace over their ethical lapses and greed, they were under attack from even the friendliest of liberal media. But years of keeping their heads low, working hard at getting along with people in the Senate, turning to charitable works (with a little help from George W. Bush) and helping the party regulars erased the sordid images. Memories of pardons sold for campaign and library contributions, their scoundrel lobbyist brothers, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of �gifts� that were solicited from people who wanted favors from the White House disappeared. Once again, time healed all.

Now, although seemingly out of time, they are still waiting. Something could happen to change things in just a minute.

But beyond their belief in Hillary�s inalienable right to the nomination and Hillary�s inevitability, there are two more factors that are keeping her in.

One is a combination of Hillary�s incredible stubbornness and Bill�s growing arrogance. They both believe that no one, absolutely no one tells them what to do. No one is going to force them � a former president and a senator � to do anything. So the more people tell them that Hillary should quit the race, the more determined they are that she should stay in.

And finally, there seems to be an uncharacteristic absence of a reality base in Hillary�s thinking. Normally, she is a no-nonsense pragmatic politician who understand when she�s up and when she�s not. But lately she seems to ignore everything that�s in front of her except the supportive cheering of the partisan crowds and the certitude of Bill Clinton.

The proof of this is that she has lent a total of $11.6 million to her campaign. The Clintons are not people who part with a dime very easily. For them to fork over that much money to a failing campaign already in deep debt is the clearest statement that they are out of touch. Even after she won Pennsylvania � by only 12 delegates � there was no mathematical way for her to win the nomination. But she then poured another $6.4 million into the campaign coffers.

The Clintons are still waiting for a miracle that isn�t going to happen. They�re hoping that over time something big will derail Obama (no doubt they�re still frantically looking for that something).

And they�re stubbornly refusing to go home. And they�re desperately hoping to make sure the rules don�t count for them.

When the reality becomes unavoidable and it is clear that Hillary has to concede the nomination in 2008. Well, there�s always 2012 or 2016 or 2020 or �

And before you even cry racist, this article was written by a black man. And if we're talking about racists you should listen to my brother and his friends talk about the white boy or rednecks, and I've heard them call white people crackers, among all the other racial slurs that are too bad to write. I see it here in my own neighborhood where I can't even say anything or the attacks will start in on me. Here is a very interesting article. Really an eye opener, but then again most independents and conservatives already have their eyes open.

And before you say it belongs on the religious board it doesn't because it is talking about Obama and where he stands on issues. But because it does make some reference to religion I will post there too.

This was written by a man named David Icke. I have a couple of his books. He is not American, so the article is not written by liberal or conservative. This is how some in the world see Obama. And the more and more I read other countries are saying we were "duped" and also they say now that the "novelty" has worn off we need to face reality of what is about to hit us. - Just not good.

I believe the title of it was Sarah Palin's Alaskanomics, but not sure. Here is the link for it anyway.

Excerpts from article Scripps Howard News. Can't link to it, could not find it on line.

It's a new president, a new era, but maybe we can salvage something from the Bush-bashing days gone by, namely some of the political catchphrases that have updated meanings in our altered circumstances. You begin to see their utility when you look at how critics worried (including most all Democrats and of course, our new president...my words, not article words) that President Bush was *sacrificing our liberty for security,* and then ask whether President Obama and the Democrats aren't aiming to sacrifice liberty (and free speech I might add) for different kinds of security. They are. The most obvious example is the eagerness to sacrifice free speech ont eh radio by reimposing the so-called Fairness Doctrine (fair...yeah right...Democrat version of fair...you are entitled to free speech ONLY if we like what you say, you always agree with us and never say negative things about us..lol). Then there's the effort for enhanced electoral security. Obama and the Democrats are in synch with a scheme to sacrifice the liberty of workers to use secret ballots in elections whether to have a union. All kinds of commercial liberties might be denied as Obama surveys his options on keeping the market in tow, revising energy policies and combating greenhouse gases. There's been talk of nationalizing banks. And to give us security from dependence on foreign oil, Obama plans to deprive the auto industry of building the kind of cars consumers want. It's a move that could do severe hurt to an alread damaged industry to no sure-fire avail.

Another catchphrase employed against Bush was that he had no *exit strategy* to get us out of the war in Iraq. A genuine fear is that Obama administration and the Federal Reserve have no *exit strategy* to get us out of a spending and money-printing spree that could help stick us with a 1.7 trillion deficit in 2009, leading to a collapsed dollar, cause a doubling of taxes and, down the road, lead to runaway inflation and even worse, interminable economic crisis and devastating decline as a prosperous world power. Especially considering that we are faced with trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security and that the bill starts coming due in relatively few years. It's hard to see how we are going extract ourselves from the consequences of this. We need a plan, or at the very least, an explanation of how we avoid disaster. I have not heard any (me either!!).

Finally, it was repeatedly said of Bush that he made up the well-founded if finally incorrect stories about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and thereby *lied us into a war.* Now there are people who are contending that Obama is using the moment's high anxiety to "lie us into socialism" (BINGO!). It's said, for example, the stimulus package will do more to create a welfare state than to arouse the economy (so far the billions thrown at it have done little), and when you put this together with regulatory overkill now being plotted, we'll have a centralized, government-controlled economic system that routinely robs from Peter to pay Paul. The recently passed House bill is loaded with evidence for this thesis...billions upon billions of wealth-transferring programs that address this crisis about as much as a sneeze.

No one wants, or should want, to subject Obama to what Bush faced, criticism that was sometimes unfair to the point of calumny. But there is too much at risk for us to all hold hands and sing kumbaya. We need to vigorously debate, and some of the phrases used ad infinitum in the Bush years can help us put some very real issues into sharper focus.

All that being said in the article....why are Democrats not asking Obama the tough questions like they asked Bush? Why are the people on this board not asking Obama the tough questions? Oh...wait....what AM I thinking??? The great O has spoken...and that's all they need.

http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama%27s_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_in_His_Speeches.pdf

These articles were very interesting. GM states they may stop producing Hummer, Saab, Saturn, and PONTIAC. Geez, what will be left? They dropped my favorite car and now I drive a Buick.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/17/news/companies/sachs_carmakers.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009021711

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/16/news/companies/what_to_look_for/index.htm?postversion=2009021615

Martin Garbus

Wed Dec 28, 1:41 PM ET

An hour after the New York Times described Bush�s illegal surveillance program, I wrote on the Huffington Post that Bush had committed a crime, a �High Crime,� and should be impeached.

Was there then enough evidence to justify the beginning of an attempt to impeach the President?

No.

Did the President have a good defense that he relied on Gonzalez, Ashcroft and the best lawyers in the country (in the Solicitor General�s and Department of Justice�s offices)?

Yes.

Would any significant number of Americans of Congressmen then support such a process?

No.

Given all that, would the turmoil and consequential turmoil have justified the start of that brutal process?

No.

But that has all changed.

Because we shall soon see the consequences of those warrantless searches, the consequences of the government�s five years of secrecy, and even the citizens of the �Red States� will be outraged. Firstly, the warrantless taps will infect hundreds of �terrorist� and criminal cases throughout the country. Not only future cases, but past and present cases, even if there were convictions or plea bargains after the survellance started.

The defendants in �terrorist� and other infected criminal cases, the Court must find, must get access to everything, or very close to everything to make sure they were never improperly surveilled.

The Bush Administration, in these cases will refuse, as did the Nixon administration, to divulge information on national security grounds. Many alleged critical cases must then be dismissed. It will include Organized Crime and drug cases.

The entire criminal process will be brought to a standstill. Cases that should take six months to a year, will take three times as long, as motions go up and down the appellate ladder � as federal judges trial disagree with each other. Appellate Courts will disagree on issues so novel and so important that the Supreme Court will look at them.

Secondly, there will be an endless amounts of civil suits, that we can see will result in substantial damage awards. Commentators claimed there cannot be suits because no one has standing to challenge the surveillance. They are wrong. They do not remember the history of the Palmer Raids in the 1920�s, the surveillance in the Sixties and Seventies. The future will show both the enormous information the new technology has gathered but also the dishonest minimization of the extent of the surveillance.

That minimization is standard operating procedure for governments, whether they be run by Democrats or Republicans.

Thirdly, and most importantly, it is safe to preduct there will be coverups. This administration is not known for its candor.

The coverup starts by trying to get away with the vauge and meaningless defenses. Both Nixon and Clinton tried that.

When that doesn�t work, the coverup will be based on a foundation of small lies. Both Nixon and Clinton tried that.

We do not yet know what the FISA judges already fear � that they have been not just ignored by the executive but misused. The public shall also learn about the FISA judges� misuse of the FISA courts and their warrants. The courts were created to permit eavesdropping and electronic surveillance, not physical break-ins.

But the facts will show that the Bush administration, with the knowledge, and at times, the consent of, the FISA judges, conducted illegal physical break-ins - break-ins that to this day, the involved person, is unaware of.

Were the results of these �terrorist� break-ins then given to criminal authorities to start unrelated prosecutions? Of course.

The American public will also learn what this Administration has thus far successfully hidden. When Bush came into office, he signed an Exeutive Order making all of his, and his father�s, papers privileged. The order, extending 12 years out, also says if the President is incapacitated, then a third person can execute the privilege. This means anybody � a wife, a family lawyer, a child. The order also says the Vice President�s papers are privileged. It is an extraordinary Executive Order � this has never been anything like this. No one ever suggested a Vice President has executive privilege. If we do not find out what they are hiding, we will see witholding on a scale never before seen. He will no longer be able to use 9/11 and the war on terror as an excuse. It will confirm the fact that illegality and secrecy existed long before 9/11, that it started as soon as Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield got into office. It will show deliberate attempts to avoid any judicial or legislative oversight of the illegal use of executive privilege.

Impeachment procedures will come not because of wrongdoing but because of the discovery of lies.

Both Nixon and Cliton faced impeachments because they lied.

It was inconceivable before the Nixon and Clinton impeachment procedures began that there could be, or would be a country or Senate that would be responsive to it.

In the Nixon case, it spiraled from a petty break-in � in Clinton�s case from a petty sexual act.

But what Bush has done, and will do, to protect himself is not petty. It goes to the heart of the government. He already has a history of misleading the public on the searches conducted thus far. As he and his colleagues seek to minimize the vast amount of data collection, the lies will necessarily expand to cover the wrongdoing. Bush can be brought down.

I don't think there's anything wrong with laughing at something that is not only very funny but also happens to be true. Unfortunately, this Administration hasn't given us very much to smile about.

When I read this, nothing led me to believe that Google has a liberal's brain. By the way how much DID that "poor schlump" part with, since you seem to have all the answers?

"So if you and Chomsky are comfortable with putting every man, woman and child in this country at risk to satisfy whatever beef you have against freedom and democracy, fine. Your freedom of speech had a most terrible and high price tag. Something tells me that many of these fine men and women, if they could speak now, would not thank you for your thoughts."

I do not recall stating anything related to your above quote. As I said, you may have me confused with another poster.

In the first place, I'd like to say thanks for posting here, and you're welcome here any time.

As far as supplying topics to discuss, YOU seem to be the one who is actually supplying the topics. Today the Conservative board is a pleasant place to be, and even I felt safe responding to a post in your thread. The topic was excellent, and nowhere have I seen you attack a poster for his or her opinion.

You haven't come across as confrontational and hateful. Unfortunately, to a lot of people, these three have done so.

People can debate without personally attacking a poster that doesn't agree with them. You seem to have done that. I hope the Conservative board is able to get more posters like you. You've made it a comfortable place to be.

You are NOT on the conservative board any more, and you don't have to walk on eggshells here (although I seem to have acquired a "fan" who has been following me around on this board, taking swipes at everything I say and just generally being unpleasant and contributing nothing of value to any conversation). If you read the posts here, it's obvious to see whose agenda it is to discuss and debat and whose agenda is restricted to creating discomfort and attacking.

I thought your post was great, and there wasn't one word or phrase in your post above that would imply any lack of respect for a soldier.

Some people just can't understand that others support the troops by wanting to keep them alive, honor their lives by only placing those lives in jeopardy when absolutely critical and necessary to protect America. It's obvious you're not "against" our troops, but instead you're trying to fight FOR THEM while they are fighting for HIM and what I believe in the core of my soul to be his personal grudge war. I believe more and more people are coming to this realization every day and share your thoughts (and mine), as well.

I come here because I like to see what a few certain posters write. I've been reading these posters' thoughts for a few weeks now, and I find them to be genuine, original and heartfelt. (If you have any doubt as to who these people are, just follow the long trail of the hateful responses to their posts.) It's a source of relaxation to me after I finish working. I've actually made a list of whose posts aren't worth reading any more because they totally lack value and are designed to do nothing but attack and harass. I'm no longer willing to feed their addiction to hate, and I simply won't respond to them any more. Again, if you read the board, I'm sure you will see who I'm referring to and why. Wouldn't surprise me at all if you are their next target. They can be very upsetting and cause normal, intelligent people to become very defensive. They bait posters, and it seems to me if they're ignored, their posts will just stand alone, making their motives very, very clear. (Just my personal opinion, and I only mention it because I don't want anyone to get to you or chase you away from here because they simply aren't worth it.)

I'm really glad to see you here. Now I have one more reason to continue visiting this board. I hope you have a great day!

P.S. I noted in your first post you mentioned you're a "military brat." I'd just like to personally thank you and your family for the sacrifices you made for your country and for me as one of its citizens!

I'm posting the entire post, since I'm not sure if I copied the link correctly. It was posted by vs, followed by additional attacks on gt and Brunson complaining of the *bog of eternal stench* that she claims *tends to drift on over here* on the Conservative Board, after nobody from the Liberal Board has bothered them. Not once.

This is the post on the Conservative Board from vs, but it's not the only objectionable one.

Sorry to see you go

I understand why though. It's a darn shame that one or two people make this an intolerable place for everyone. Well, if the post count goes down on the boards then maybe they will revisit their policies. At least on these boards the two-initialed Nazi is allowed get away with her genocide of anything conservative, but that's not helping the post count on the board at all.

BTW, I went to the Extremely Politics board, and only a person with a self-esteem death wish would dare post there. I can see why the two-initialed Nazi likes it there. She's free to practice her hate. It's not a place I would want to touch with a 10-foot pole.

http://www.forumatrix.com/ads/frame.cgi?action=main&target=www.forumatrix.com/Channels

Yes, forgiveness does mean that we have to realize our sins and confess them. But, unless you are either George Bush himself, his pastor, or his God, how do you know he hasn't? That is conjecture on your part. None of us knows what has transpired between this man and his God. I realize what I am saying will not be popular here, but I don't see a whole lot of Christianity in what I am seeing. Quoting from written sources is not addressing the fact that you are sitting in judgement of someone who is not you. We aren't supposed to do that. I hope you all have a blessed Sunday. I am off to church and will certainly pray that God releases from your hearts the hatred you carry.

Here is some more from the conference. So shines a light in a sometimes dim world.

The sanctity and infinite worth of every human being is a quintessential Jewish value, grounded in the biblical notion that man is made in the image and likeness of God. Against this background, it is ironic and vexatious for many pro�life activists that American Jews tend to line up on the pro�choice side in the struggle over abortion. Affirming the Sanctity of Human Life, a conference held November 12 in Washington, D.C., brought together a hundred or so Jews who are troubled by the Jewish community�s stance toward the unborn, particularly concerning the gruesome late�term procedure known as partial�birth abortion. The morning session consisted of panel presentations by three Orthodox Jews and a maverick Reform rabbi. Marshall Breger, a law professor and political writer, lamented the fact that Jews support abortion rights more than any religious or ethnic group: they are consistently 15 to 20 percent above the norm, he said, even when controlling for various factors such as religious belief or unbelief, political ideology, social class, etc. He attributed this support, in part, to fears that governmental restrictions on abortion would abridge personal autonomy and impose Christian religious standards on Jewish life. He said that gray areas in Jewish law�its combination of silence and ambiguity regarding the fetus� status, its handful of exceptional situations allowing abortion�have confused Jews about the permissibility of abortion in general.

Barry Freundel, an Orthodox rabbi from Georgetown, seconded Breger�s sociological account of Jewish fears about abortion as being symbolic of the wider Jewish culture clash with conservative Christian movements. It�s hard to have a conversation about abortion, he said, that doesn�t become a conversation about something else. Even among his own Orthodox congregants, Freundel said, his pro�life preaching is treated as the rabbi getting up on his soapbox again. Nevertheless, he said, he feels obliged to inform them that the absolute license to abort, as practiced in the United States today, is simply impossible to reconcile with traditional Jewish teaching. Judaism, he said, permits abortion in a few limited circumstances, such as to save the life of the mother. He indicated that there is some difference of rabbinic opinion about these circumstances, but stressed that there is no warrant for the overwhelming number of abortions now performed in the

U.S.

He said that classic Jewish sources really don�t say much about the general moral or metaphysical status of the fetus; but, he added, we have an intuitive response that the fetus is not like an appendix or an in�grown toe nail that can simply be removed at will.