D.J. Tice: An abortion battle? Now that's the status quo

  • Article by: D.J. TICE , Star Tribune
  • Updated: November 11, 2009 - 7:41 AM

The rift in the House over health care reform shows that much remains as it ever was in politics.

  • 22
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
gzillaNov. 10, 09 7:08 PM

Is there a chance that Oberstar represents a majority view?

CullenNov. 10, 09 7:18 PM

and DJ Tice wants to talk about Abortion. Yep, situation normal.

njoylife303Nov. 10, 09 9:14 PM

Why would there be any debate about federal dollars being used for abortions? Abortion is a legal medical procedure. Are federal dollars used for Viagra and penile implants? Abortions are legal and therefore should be paid for just like any other medical procedures. Hopefully, federal dollars will also be used for contraception and education so there are less and less unplanned pregnancies.

wasouder2Nov. 10, 09 9:46 PM

I don't remember anyone asking me if it was okay to spend my tax dollars on the war in Iraq. Or to subsidize tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. What box do I check on my tax return to ensure that some of my money goes to stem-cell research...and none to Halliburton? Am I crazy to think this is the stupidest debate ever...or is it Congress? Wait...nevermind.

Jinkens1Nov. 10, 0910:59 PM

"Many millions of Americans have their health insurance handsomely subsidized by the federal government through the tax exclusion on the employer-paid portion of premiums." Liberals think that eliminating tax burdens on dollars used for legitimate business expenses like health care for their employees is a federal subsidy. In other words, if the government doesn't take from you portions of your money that you've earned and used on employee health care, it's really a gift. DJ Tice just clearly illustrated that the left believes individuals and businesses are entitled to nothing of what's theirs and lucky if they're allowed to keep anything.

brefokNov. 11, 09 4:43 AM

abortion prevents one of the parties involved to be able to enjoy life at all, because it is ended through no choice of their own in the supposed safety in the mother's womb. Legality and morality are not congruent, in other words just because abortion has been legal for 36 years at the cost of about 50,000,000 unborn lives does not mean it is moral, never has been, never will be.

kvarnoldNov. 11, 09 6:34 AM

For you anti-choice folks. How many unwanted children have you adopted? I usually assume you have very large families because of this. Second question: if abortion was not legal (and you call it murder) if a woman has an abortion in say, Texas for example, you support the death penalty for the doctor, mother, her husband and anyone who abets it, correct? And lastly, do you like or dislike government intervention in you life?

editor25Nov. 11, 09 7:19 AM

Shorter DJ Tice: "American politicians are still fighting about abortion." Thanks for another great nugget of insight.

Jinkens1Nov. 11, 09 7:23 AM

For the pro-abortion kvarnold. I would adopt any baby that you were going to abort. That child would at least grow up in a God loving home where they would know nothing but love. There they would be taught to take personal responsibility for all their actions, and to not live as a victim their entire life. They would realize the limit-less opportunity that lies in the founding principles of this country. Second question: the answer is yes, for the murderer because it's the law in Texas. Ultimately I do not support the death penalty. Third question: What does that even mean? No I don't like government intervention in my life but I don't understand what you're referring to. Why would anyone want government intervention in their life? Does that mean that if government doesn't agree that I'm allowed to speak whatever I want, they can cut out my tongue? That to me would be government intervention and I would most decidedly dislike that. Now I have a question for you since I answered yours. Why do you support the execution of babies in the womb but are against it for convicted murderers and rapists?

clevengerNov. 11, 09 7:31 AM

One one hand, I hope so - let's face it, the abortion issue will never be resolved. There is too much emotion involved. I would never personally get one, but neither would I say that deciding on such an issue is within the purview of government one way or the other. However, I think that both sides of the political debate need to compromise in order to get something accomplished. It would be nice if the conservative side could follow this lead and let go of some of the bitter, defensive attitude in the spirit of getting something practical accomplished for everyone. Isn't that what they're being paid to do?


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters




question of the day

Poll: What was your biggest Olympics disappointment?

Weekly Question