Um, I kinda surprised you had that attitude at 9.

See these young people at Notre Dame are graduating, meaning they are purty smart. And being purty smart they most likely voted for President Obama. See churh crap belongs in the church. See Neal they is probably pirt near as smart as they can be; so that makes them pirt near fur sure smarter than you. You did go to scuul in Texas rite?

Notre Dame is a Roman Catholic institution and Roman Catholics have a right to defend their faith even if the positions it takes on life is unpopular.
I am so proud that Professor Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Univesity Law School
refused the Notre Dame Laetare award rather than share the stage with the President. I reiterate, Notre Dame University is not part of the government it is part of the Roman Catholic community.

When it comes to the issue of abortion, how we personally feel about it doesn't matter. What matters is the truth. The truth is that the unborn baby is a living human being. We know this by science, faith, and common sense. The trouble seems to be that there are those in our society that feel that human life isn't always worth saving. This is very dangerous. It's this type of thinking that always precedes horrific injustice.

Today it's the unborn babies. Tomorrow it could be you and involuntary euthanasia. And who will speak up for you?

Neal, I love you but you missed the point regarding Obama at Notre Dame. Notre Dame is a Catholic university. The Conference of American Bishops issued rules that explicitly say that no honors should be bestowed upon nayone opposed to basic church teachings. The Catholic church believes in the sanctity of life -- beginning at conception. So the big problem is not that a Pro-Choice president is in the White House or even that he gave the commencement address at ND. The problem was that ND conferred an honorary degree on a high-profile, active, powerful opponent to a central church teaching.

I am a pro choice, small govt, No IRS kind of a guy. But I despise Boortz so much that I am having fun reading all his loyal followers (Jesus Freaks) unloading on him! Good reading!

Neal, I really enjoy your show, and I 'm sure you enjoy doing it. I'm glad you weren't aborted.

"I'm going to continue to fear a government that would force a woman to have a baby she does not want to have, and the other side is going to continue to sing the praises of government force. And so it goes."

I'm going to continue to fear a society that denies the basic protection of life to its most defenseless members. And the other side is going to continue to sing the praises of infanticide in the name of freedom.

Just saying, the reason Neal will never understand the pro-life argument--this goes for those of you who don't see through his rhetoric (regardless of whether or not you are pro-life)--is because he has never honestly approached the other side.

"While I rarely agree with you,"

That's just cause you are listening with the wrong ear!

It is not rocket science here. The real reason Mr. Boortz does not discuss this issue on his show is money and listeners. He knows his audience is overwhelmingly conservative and thus is overwhelmingly pro-life. If he says anything to make them turn away he will most certainly pay for it in the long run. Being as this is issue #1 for a lot of conservatives the results of his speaking in any form or fashion for the right to an abortion would be an inexcusable sin to a large portion of his audience. It's not that he is afraid to take on heated issues or make his opinion known. It's that he knows on this issue if he doesn't preach to the choir they will join another church. If he believed that abortion was murder and there should be no right to it he would talk about it as often as anything else because he would have no concern with angry liberal listeners. They are just additional listeners...not the core. That is why he avoids the topic. I believe he is closer to pro choice then pro life and because of it he will not speak of it for fear of driving away his base.

What idiot invited the Baby Killer in Chief to speak at a Catholic Univesity?

While I rarely agree with you, I'm really getting to like you.

Stop it.

You don't talk about it Neil because you are wrong, it's provable and you don't want to be shown to be wrong. I can take you on this debate on anytime, anyday with you and you will lose, everytime.

You are a coward on this issue. Facts are stubborn things. Refusing to face them does not make them go away. Grow up Neil and face them and quit being a chicken about the abortion issue. It's not and will never go away.

FUNNY! Exactly right you are.

Neal is going to continue to fear a government that is strong enough to force parents to take care of the children they conceive, and not murder them. Maybe some day you kids will grow up and realize that what really matters is money, and not human life. Then you'll be all wild about Neal's Fairy Tax plan, and ignore that pile of 40 million dead babies over there. Then you'll be a Boortz Libertarian: life, liberty, and property - but the most important of these is property. Neal's planning to take it with him, don't you know?

"I'm going to continue to fear a government that would force a woman to have a baby she does not want to have..."
Me, too. While you're at it, don't forget to fear a government that would force a woman to keep a baby she already has that she doesn't want. I mean, using the same logic, a woman who changes her mind 3 days after birth, and decides she doesn't want the baby anymore should be able to kill it, right? Oops...that's called murder, and no red/white/blue American would ever condone that. Same baby...just a different location. Basically, Neal and others hold that that whether or not you are a human being with the RIGHT to live is dependent upon your LOCATION. 10 inches in (birth canal), no right to live. 10 inches out, Congratulations, your life is protected now!! There is not a more screwed-up logical premise than that! Think...

This forum today is really useful.

Now, I have changed my mind. Every letter I read changes my view of this topic. I'm sure that is true of all the other posters here. Whoops, another letter. Now, I think differently again. . .no, wait!

Do you suppose anyone here has changed their minds today, reading this treacle?

Just call me Mr. Cognitive Dissonant.

ok. this is my humble opinion. whether you are pro or con on abortion, if it ain't your womb GET THE HELL OUTA THERE!

SHE is the only one who can allow who or what gets access to her womb. SHE has to live with the choices SHE makes.I don't see alot of prolifers stepping up and saying "I'll take care of the baby."

so once again if it ain't your womb GET THE HELL OUTA THERE!! that is where I stand, it does not mean I am pro or con on the abortion issue. I do support CAPITAL PUNISHMENT for revenge purposes and it does prevent crime....the sob won't ever do that again.

DRIP don't return incumbent politicians

I agree. The exceptions of rape or incest for abortions make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I am pro-life, and I do not allow for those exceptions. I know that wasn't really your point, but all you pro-lifers our there...Todd does make an interesting point: why do you allow for these exceptions?

joe do you marinate?

Food for thought... A Pro-choice person can also be pro-life (it is their choice). I'm both pro-life and pro-choice, interesting concept, that choice can imply two different options... I believe that life is sacred, and begins at conception, BUT, I also believe that this is MY belief, and not the person's next to me. I believe that each person has a choice, and has free will. I believe the government has no right to intrude on that freedom, and that the planning and structure of a family is the sole responsibility of the parties involved in the creation of said family.

Notre Dame has dramatically undermined the value of an honorary degree with the latest bestowed upon Obama. I now question the validity of any degree where hypocrisy is such a unique portion of an institution's foundation.
Sounds like our less than esteemed levels of government.

Your statement is basically that you only have the right to life in this country if you are a citizen of it as well. So persons that are not citzens, here legally or illegally have therefore forfeit their right to live. That notion is simply absurd. The fact that one becomes a citizen simply means that they government cannot itself deprive you of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Citzenship gaurantees you protection from the government and specific protection under the law. It does not remove than protection from any non-citizen including unborn children. If we hold that all living people have the same right to life that our citizens do, then the only relevant question is when does life begin, not when does citizenship.

The one thing that baffles me is that you can be tried for a double murder if you kill a preganant woman, but a pregnant mother can have an abortion without being charged for murder?

Neal displays rare intellectual dishonesty by using the phrase "force a woman to have a baby". Libertarians are known for a 'Live and let live' view of life and people can do what they want as long as it does not impose on the rights of others.

The fundamental argument for or against abortion centers on the determination of when life begins - the only possible justification is the belief that a baby is not a person until it is free of its mother's umbilical cord.

Neal clearly holds this view because otherwise he would not consider the prevention of murder "control of women's reproduction systems" (funny that Neal gets sucked in by this particular liberal phraseology).

. . .you could get an abortion at Wal-Mart.

Or, a really nice one at Target.

It blows me away that you think protesting abortion is trying to controll the reproductive lives of women. These women have the chance to control their own reproductive lives when they choose to perform the " horizontal mombo" as you refer to it. They never think about the prospects of actually getting pregnant as long as their having their fun sleeping with whoever they want to, well not sleeping. Its after they make the wrong decision that they say I dont want a baby, what happens to your theory of living with the consequences of your actions, I guess it doesn't apply here.

Ooooooo, I'm so scared (not).

After all, how do you know YOU are worshipping the "right" god? And, besides, what kind of a god worthy of admiration and adoration requires people to worship him under threat of eternal damnation . . . such a god strikes me as a tyrant, not a "loving god".

Vegetarian,

Shall I infer from your post that you support abortion rights? Should I also infer that you have less of a problem with late-term/partial birth abortion than the slaughter of pigs or cows?

Would you feel better if I only ate fetal meat?

My intelligent response to this....I'm so sick of seeing Barry's face I could puke.

I wonder if Neal ever realizes that HIS mom was pro-life. Hey Neal, would you
have supported your mom's right to abort you...and if so, do you consider your own life to be worthless?

In other words, any breathing human being who claims to be "pro-choice" hasn't thought this issue out very well.

It must be said that the abortion argument is two fold. The first and only really important argument is when does life begin. That is the only point of contention. If life only begins when a baby is born, then clearly abortion should be legal. If you believe that life begins at the moment of conception, then abortion can only be legal under very proscribed circumstances.

For the question of when does life begin, I would ask you Neal to consider weather single celled organisms are alive? If they are, then life begins at conception. We have no more right to wantonly destroy them that anything else. I find it offensive, that environmentalists will go out of there way to protect some fish, but will do nothing to protect an unborn child. Some argue that it is not life until it can subsist on its own, but frankly then there is not life in humans begins until age six at best and 12 for most people. Please show me the child that could live more than a month or two completely alone in this world. If this is the case, then that child has no right to live and is simply an object to be owned.

Since it is obsurd to say that a child is not a life, it is equally absurd to say an unborn child is not a life. Once those cells begin to grow, they are alive, lack of any discernable personality aside. I know some adults that have no personality, but they are still alive. Consider then when is it legal to take the life of another? Only when that person's continued existence present an imminent threat to your own. So the same must be said for unborn children as well. I only ask that doctors consider this from the stance of ending the pregnancy, not ending the childs life.

Being opposed to abortion is in no way an attempt to control the reproductive lives of women, Neal. You play the same game liberals play with this statement. (Sort of like the whole "give back" phrase. You love to say that opposing abortion is trying to "control women." What a shallow argument. Same with your "prochoice/antichoice" argument.. why don't you ever say prolife/antilife since that's more accurate?). We're all Pro Choice.. but The choice is whether or not to take your pants off.. Too bad sex isn't free huh? Since you love to preach personal responsibility, maybe you should bring it into your view on pregnancy?

The problem with the abortion is that people consistently assume it's a religious value. There is nothing more inherently religious about opposing abortion than opposing killing the elderly or stealing or anything else. Religious people often reference God as the source of their values, so what. What does it matter as long as those values fall in line with our constitution? I don't see anyone complaining that Christians, Catholics or whatever are opposed to murder, slavery, theft, etc.?

I love the way that the Obama heckler at the Notre Dame speech completely matches the stereotype of the usual "pro life" people: an overweight sweaty middle-age white guy in a suit, who looks like he'll have a heart attack by the end of the week.

He probably has a poor sex life, a fat ugly wife with whom he produced 6-8 kids, and I'll bet he's struggling in his job as a life insurance salesman in Podunk, USA. So he's bitter and hateful.

Uh, Neal, protesting Gay Marriage, Abortion, and Stem Cell research rather than the economy and topics that are useful to the American people is what the republican party has done for years. Trust me, if the republican party actually believed in a smaller government and less taxes I would vote for them

...if they're don't use that "Meat is Murder" line.

The left believes taking human life is acceptable when ordered by the child’s mother, and our side does not. Naturally, once a child is born, it would be murder if a child were killed by its parents — except if being “born” means surviving a late-term abortion. How can we achieve a respectful dialog under these conditions?

It’s OK to kill babies, but horrifically bad to waterboard terrorists.

A good compromise would be the opposite of that.

Interesting thing, buddy... the Declaration of Independence was merely a letter of notification to King George that we were no longer considering ourselves colonists. It has no legal standing. Fortunately, they cleared that up in the Constitution, where they stated that the title of citizenship was granted at birth (not conception). Yeah, darn that Constitution! Please see 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

-translated: Citizens (people who by definition must have been born) have the right to life. Otherwise, we'd have to issue social security numbers at conception, find a new way to census all women to check for early stages of pregnancy, or perhaps a disgruntled mother could sue her unborn child for stealing her calcium during gestation... we can go crazy with the what-if's, but you can't go crazy with the what-is's. What is, is a baby is fully dependent on its mother, like a (don't take this the wrong way) virus is to its host. Sometimes, people don't want a particular affliction (like pregnancy) and while it may bother people like me that they wish to terminate that pregnancy, i respect that it is their body, flesh of their flesh, and as such, they were granted the power, by God, of free will to determine what they do with their bodies. Besides, the killing of the unborn is OK in God's eyes, so long as God is your enemy I guess, then there are no such things as innocents, see II Kings 8:12 - Hazael said, "Why does my lord weep?" Then he answered, "Because I know the evil that you will do to the sons of Israel: their strongholds you will set on fire, and their young men you will kill with the sword, and their little ones you will dash in pieces, and their women with child you will rip up."

If women want to kill their babies before they leave the womb, I can't stop them. What I would like to stop is their use of my money to pay for it. The federal government needs to stop paying for abortions (among numerous other things), period.

Now I thought I'd check the Constitution. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Posterity? What's that? Oh, future generations. Looks like the unborn should be protected by our Constitution.

The Catholic Church was against the Iraq War, but they were still kind to Bush when he came around. I guess protesting the death of innocents only matters when we're talking about stem cells or unwanted children, not the children killed in collateral damage or as soldiers in an optional war. Those protesters are bad people.

Abortions, like alcohol and drugs, are not good for society, but you have to find ways to reduce them without making them illegal. (unlike alcohol and drugs, abortions aren’t fun, which is why we don’t see people going to clinics to hang out or unwind after a rough day at the office) How would you envision a world where all abortion is illegal? Imagine it... a perfect utopia, babies being born every day, and a few terminated, just like now, and formerly-expectant mothers being thrown in prison, doctors being thrown in prison, all at the expense of the tax payer, at between 45 and 65 thousand dollars per year. Yes, this blissful future could be yours... or, we could keep the laws as-is, and educate people, or offer viable alternatives to abortion. Criminalization is not an answer to the problem, a fundamental shift in society is all that can be done to remedy the issue. THAT is the fundamental disagreement between the two camps that the camp on the right, the "pro-life" camp (as if there is a "pro-death" camp out there somewhere) believes in. If the pro-life folks would turn away from our politicians, and let them focus on relevant issues to the survival of our nation, then maybe they'd have the spare time to reach out to the youth in their community, through afterschool projects, charity work, volunteer programs, or as mentors, and they can reduce the number of abortions. Dreaming of a world without abortions is like dreaming of a world without taxes. It won't happen, be realistic. Just accept it, and do your best to reduce them... and that can only be done at the individual level, and will never work at the criminal justice level.

To expand on atlmom's comment; abortion is wrong. Using government to stop it is like using government to stop drugs, run schools, give to the needy, buy art, print money, regulate medicine, and soon --- run all of medicine.
Government should be limited to protecting our borders, maintaining transportation and communication infrastructure, and catching thieves and murderers.

Hmmm, just perusing the Declaration and what do I see as our first unalienable right? Life! Without that one, the rest are moot.

I will only begin to listen to a "pro life" rant against abortion if he or she is a vegetarian.

Neal, saying that when we are against abortion is saying that we are forcing a woman to have a baby is the same type of rhetoric as Michelle Obama saying "give back." We are not forcing any woman to go have sex, she chooses that on her own. We are just saying, choose life. Why is that so hard to understand? I would rather support government funded adoption rather than abortion. All I'm saying is that we should not just take a life simply because it is inconvinient for people. Pro-life is "forcing a woman to have a baby"? Come on Neil, stop this dirty rhetoric, you know it is not the issue, stop demeaning the issue.

The topic of abortion is not that simple. Neal falls into the trap of simplifying an issue. There are mulitple reasons for either allowing or banning from both sides, and those reasons lead to other aspects of governing. AS a fiscal conservative, if someone thinks their own life will be improved by obtaining an abortion, I will not stop them, I just don't want to pay for it, the same way I don't want to pay for someone's boob job because they think it will improve their life.

And the ones who champion this use of government force in people's personal lives will continue to call themselves "conservative" for some reason.

Odd, isn't it?

The thing is, whatever behavior you are going to outlaw is going to happen. No matter what it is. One must determine if one wants to live in a society that makes said action legal or illegal. Um, I would prefer women not get abortions. I don't think it's up to me to judge whether it's moral or not, but I digress. The alternative is that we go back to the days when girls and women had back alley abortions. Is that really what one wants when one says they want to make abortion illegal? There are plenty of things I may think are wrong, but they are not illegal. There is a large difference there.

If you ever want a good laugh, read the press releases of The Catholic League and its nutcase insufferable leader Bill Donohue; this group was among those leveraging the Notre Dame speech to make noise to generate publicity for themselves.
http://www.catholicleague.org/quarter_release.php