An open letter to Larry Kissell


Dear Larry.

I remember our first conversation like it was yesterday. You called me to ask for advice about your campaign, and also to ask for money. I gave you both. I told you to dump the ridiculous orange t-shirt you were wearing and put on a tie. I asked you to always tell the truth.

My wife and I maxed out in contributions to your campaign. I opened my house to you for a major fundraiser. I got one of my best friends to do the same. My friends and I collectively raised tens of thousands of dollars, all based what you told us.

You stood on the back deck at my house when you promised to be a thoughtful representative in Congress. You promised you would put the people of North Carolina first in everything you did. You told me you would fight for what is right and fair for regular people, people who weren't getting a fair shake, people who were suffering because of the aftershocks of years of government by special interests.

You called me three times to thank me for my help. You said you couldn't have done it without me. You told me I could count on you to keep your word.

But you're not doing that. You're not thinking through the facts of healthcare reform, like you said you would. You're relying on lies from special interests. You're pretending like the current healthcare system is a sustainable proposition, when you know it is not.

You see citizens in your district being dumped by insurance companies every day and you're not stepping up to do something about it. You see people going bankrupt because of the lack of health reform every day and you're ignoring them. You're also ignoring your own CBO estimates that show how healthcare reform actually saves money in the long run.

I've listened to all your explanations, Larry, and they don't hold water. They make about as much sense as that orange t-shirt you had plastered all over your first website. They are boneheaded and they are wrong.

You took my advice once, Larry Kissell. Now I'm asking you to take it one more time. I'm asking you to keep your word. Not just to me, but to the thousands of people who believed what you said.

James Protzman


Well put.

Well put.

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire


Ditto. Ditto.

Voting NO

He has already said he is voting "NO"....again.


very disappointed

I was a sponsor for one of his early fundraisers here in Charlotte and have been very disappointed in his performance in DC. Plus he still owes the Meck Dem Party $900 for using our headquarters during the '08 election.

me three (more like three thousand)

I'm disappointed too. I contributed to Kissell in 2006 AND in 2008. I encouraged friends to donate too, and to go down and work in the 8th Congressional District.

You can't control whether you get more than one term in office. But you CAN determine your legacy as a Congressperson. There is no more important vote than this one. Do the right thing, Larry.

Feel like you're spinning your wheels?
Get some Traction... turning energy into progressive movement

Larry, this bill will let people like me get insured

I spent a lot of time in 2006 and 2008 volunteering for you. I dropped everything on election day 2006 and spent the whole day making calls for you and organizing other students to do the same. I also contributed to your campaign despite not having much money to give. I, and others like me, hoped you would use your position to fight for the little guy, not screw them over like your predecessor did.

I've held out hope through now despite your record of conservative votes because plausibly, you could have known that your vote wasn't needed to pass the bills. It's needed now, and we need this bill. Please vote for it.

I called this morning, and the intern who answered my call gave the "Medicare cut" excuse. I asked how he could justify that when there are people like John Conyers in Congress now who have been sticking up for Medicare since Larry was a kid, and they (and basically everyone else) see nothing wrong with it. She said that the aide who was able to respond to that was out of the office; I intend to call back later.

Piling on Larry?

Either way! It is hard to fiqure out what Larry is doing? If Larry was really smart! All he can say or do is that he is for a Public Option, thus stopping his base of Progressives from not supporting him and busting their butts for him. With no base, he is toast no matter what Poll or what those stupid DC Democrat congressional establishment type consultants are telling him or promising......

Reminds me of BJ Lawson and the Ron Paul tea baggers, They claim to have national or a local Poll showing them sweeping to victory in November in the most heavy control democrat district in the state.....It's not going to happen period!

Well, what can I say

that hasn't already been said. But I will try.

I generally tend to work/give in my district in Congressional races. But the excitement generated here at BlueNC pushed me to donate money to Larry and get other people to donate money.

Did I max out like James? No. But I gave. In both cycles. I convinced a person that had actually worked for Larry's opponent to donate and vote for Larry in the last cycle.

But this is it for me. If health insurance reform does not pass, all Democrats lose. When the DSCC and the DCCC and the DNC send me letters, they go in the trash. When I hear the name Larry Kissell I say vote against him.

Some here may call me cynical or worse, but I will do my part destroy the Democratic village in order to save it. If we cannot get this very centrist bill through with our majority, then what good are we anyway.

So, Mr. Kissell, you can be the guy that inspires people like me for the party or the guy that inspires people like me to say, to quote Eric Cartman, "screw you guys, I'm going home."

Larry - Are you still a Democrat?

You need to stand with the President and vote for the health care bill.

I attended a fundraiser at James' house for you.
I attended one at Eugene Brown's house in Durham for you.
I dragged my whole family to your BBQ fundraiser at the State Fairgrounds.
I sent contributions in the mail and blogged for you all over the internets.
I contributed more money to your campaign than to any other candidate, ever.

You need to stand up, be a proud Democrat, and vote for this bill.
Otherwise, you might as well be John Edwards - nothing but a huge disappointment.

I know real people

who are more likely to die if health care reform does not pass now.

I have a good friend with a form of leukemia that has recently gone into remission thanks to very expensive medication which she and her husband were able to pay for in large part through help from their health insurance. Now he's been laid off, and their COBRA coverage is ticking down. With a "pre-existing condition" like hers, no private insurer under current rules will cover her, and they are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid. Coverage under the existing NC high-risk program will only bankrupt them somewhat more slowly.

Rep. Kissell, would you like to explain to them why you're going to leave them out in the cold, over political cold feet? I can arrange a meeting.

Dan Besse

Mr. Kissell, please, please, please

consider your actions and vote FOR health care reform. I sent you contributions, I wrote about were different then. You were very vocal, you said all the right things, people believed in you, please be THAT Larry again.

Rep. Kissell

Who can we trust if we can't trust you? You are one of us. Democrats who would put our own political careers second to this historic moment. Stand tall and have courage.

Do the right thing.


Do the right thing and vote YES! for the Health Care bill.

Received this "Invitation" from the Kissell camp

this morning....

Some folks are having a fundraising reception for me on March 27th from 2-4p.m. in Charlotte and I wanted to personally invite you and your family to attend.

Please email for more information or to RSVP. Also, feel free to forward this email to any friends and family you have in the Charlotte area.



P.S. Scott, my fundraiser, made me put this link in here since it's almost the end of the quarter. As always, I would truly appreciate any contribution you can make towards our campaign by clicking here.

I wonder who the "some folks" are....

I received it too

Meet you there---NOT!!


ME too.

Hey maybe we should show up there. He couldn't ignore us then.


Larry, you either don't understand or you don't care. You snowed me like a teenager at a Beatles concert (I'm old). I gave to your campaign. Not a lot, but a lot for me since I have to give to others too. I went to three fundraisers for you...two of them in Raleigh and I live in Fayetteville. We had a fundraiser for another candidate at my family home and you showed up. You collected money there too. I didn't resent it..I was happy for you. I resent it now.

I know three congressmen who stuck their necks out for you. They went to fundraisers for you and pleaded with the DCCC to help you. Most of us on BlueNC know who they are.
Imagine how stunned and disappointed they are. BTW, they have given up on you. You are dead to them. I have called your office and sent you e-mails about bills in the last year and I usually hear from you a week after your vote. You really don't care what I think.

Last month the Cumberland County Dems had a caucus to replace Margaret Dickson and Breeden Blackwell. The room was full. If you could have heard the conversations about you, you would have been shocked. Not one person in that room said they would vote for you again or give you money. Are you listening??? I hope you don't need Cumberland County. Do you really think that Republicans will vote for you because you are voting with the Republicans? Think again.


I really miss the original Larry

he would answer letters, emails and phone calls. He stood up for "We the People" and told us he would support us all. I don't understand what happened to him, and would love to hear from him....

Larry the Letdown

Like others here I gave more than once help Larry run, to cover his debts, and then to run again. I used my precinct email list to encourage others to do the same.

If Mr. Kissell votes against HCR, he's going to have a very lonely campaign this year.

For Veterans

Lack of health care or access to adequate health care killed 2,266 veterans in 2008. That's higher than the death toll in Afghanistan that year. The uninsured have a 40% higher risk of dying each year than insured individuals. Everyone who serves is not eligible for VA care. According to census data that's about 1.5 million people. That someone who is willing to risk their life for the rest of us should suffer for one day without access to adequate health care should be a great source of shame for this country. A shame that is shared by Mr. Kissell.

If I could have convinced more slaves that they were slaves, I could have freed thousands more.

Harriet Tubman (1822 – 1913)


That's Rep. Kissell's Washington office number. If you haven't called yet this week, please do.

The explanatory response which his staff has been instructed to provide makes no rational sense. It's political cover. So, if political arguments are prevailing in that office, then it's incumbent upon us to be sure that they are aware of the adverse consequences of maintaining that decision.

Help let Rep. Kissell know that his former support base in North Carolina is outraged over this matter. The consequences of a deflated Democratic base in the 8th district could be severe in this contest and other races in the same geographic territory this fall.

Fortunately, Rep. Kissell can still pull that plane out of its nosedive: Vote for the health care reform bill this time.


Dan Besse

Suggestion on Kissell

If there is someone posting here on BlueNC that is in the 8th District, maybe it would do some good for that person to go to Kissell's Contact Site and put in the URL for BlueNC for him to access so he can see what his dedicated democrats are saying here. You would think he or one of his staff members would be peeping in on us here, but maybe not.

He is losing a lot of people that have been and still want to be supporters of his. This is not just an issue where he can stick his head in the sand. You know it isn't just the few people posting here that are upset with his supposed stance on HCR.

I suggest someone from the 8th because of the way the "contact form" is made up. A lot of times, they do not even bother with what people say if they are not in their district, believe it or not.

It IS worth calling Kissell 202-225-3715 to vote FOR Healthcare

My husband, Dan Besse, is at the National League of Cities conference in Washington, D.C. Based on what he's seeing there, if you live anywhere in Kissell's district, it's worth your time and effort to call Kissell and register your continued concern that he vote to pass the health care bill.

I know that the current popular wisdom is that he is unshakably against it, but it doesn't look like that from DC. Dan is up there and the "feel" seems to be that it's worth putting on the pressure.

Contributing to that, the President of the Service Employees International (SCI) Union, was interviewed on MSNBC this afternoon. I'm no longer the political junkie I used to be, so I had to ask. Dan explained: SCI is one of the biggest, fastest growing and most politically agressive unions in the country.

When asked about another member of congress, the SCI President injected Kissell's name SPONTANEOUSLY as a targeted House Democrat to switch his vote to yes on health care.

SCI wouldn't be putting their effort into Kissell at this late date if they didn't think that the furor was having an effect on his vote. We KNOW it has had an effect on his behavior. He wasn't at the state convention and I'll bet many of you can name other places he'd usually have been and wasn't.

Maybe he just doesn't want to hear about it, but maybe he's realizing that he doesn't want to come home and tell his district that he voted against it.

Keep those calls going in. Don't forget that snail mail letters take to long to be screened. Much better to waste a call than to have failed to make the call that would have turned him around, even if only by altering percentages to an unacceptably high level. Call 202-225-3715 or use that button up in the right corner marked "Tell Kissell to keep his word" and, er um, well tell Kissell.

(Good job NC Blue.)

Busy, Busy, Busy

I have tried all morning to call Larry's office, but the line is busy. I swore I wasn't going to call him, because I have tried to sway him before and he has never done a thing I asked. He didn't mind calling me a few months ago to ask if I was going to support him in this election. Actually, it was a message on my voice mail that asked me to call back to let him know. I have responded to him the same way he responded to me. I'll bet he will never again show up at a fundraiser that I am having for someone else.


Got Through

A friend and I just kept hitting the redial button until we got through.

They didn't ask who I was...just where I lived.

Call. It might not help, but it certainly won't hurt.


James, you asked Larry Kissell to "always tell the truth."

Did you mean except w/r/t his oath of office?

There are a few things you should know about the "reconciliation" and Slaughter "deem it passed" processes that the Democrats are planning to use, to get around the fact that they don't have the votes to pass a healthcare bill the normal way.

First, the Slaughter "deem it passed" procedure would be the first time in American history in which a bill was deemed to be enacted without being passed in identical form by both the House and Senate.

It is blatantly extralegal and plainly unconstitutional, being contrary to Article 1, Sec. 7 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that "every bill" which becomes law "shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate" before it goes to the President to be signed or vetoed.

Second, "reconciliation" isn't what you probably think it is.

You might be a bit perplexed by all this "reconciliation" talk. Maybe you thought you were pretty well informed about the federal lawmaking process, but now you've been hearing that reconciled health bills can't be filibustered, which surprises you. In fact, you might even recall some examples where House and Senate versions of a bill were reconciled in conference committee, but the compromise bills were then filibustered in the Senate.

So, what's going on?

A scam, that's what. The "reconciliation" they're talking about is not reconciling two versions of the bill. Rather, it is actually budget reconciliation, which is something entirely different.

The reason they say "reconciliation" rather than "budget reconciliation" is to obfuscate what they are doing, and how dishonest it is.

Budget reconciliation is a process for passing a new law (called a budget reconciliation bill) which amends an already-passed-and-signed-into-law budget law, to bring it into conformance with a previously-passed budget resolution.

Budget reconciliation is used to reduce budget deficits. Budget Reconciliation is designed to give some baby teeth to budget resolutions, when subsequently-passed budget bills contains a higher spending than the budget resolution called for.

They're not reconciling HR 3200 with HR 3590. Rather, they are discarding HR 3200 entirely, pretending ("deeming") that HR 3590 passed, and then amending HR 3590 through the Budget Reconciliation process.

1) It's not a budget bill!
2) The bill being amended hasn't passed, and isn't law!
3) Enacting the reconciliation bill won't bring anything into conformance with a budget resolution!
4) It won't reduce the deficit, it will increase it!

The Democrats' spin is that Republicans have used this process in the past, so they have no right to complain when Democrats use it. The truth is that both Republicans and Democrats have used Budget Reconciliation to bring already passed budgets into conformance with previously passed budget resolutions, only. Nobody has ever suggested using it to enact massive new government programs, until now.

Congress now has two healthcare bills:

* HR 3200 (which does not fund abortions) was passed by the House.

* HR 3590 (which does fund abortions) was passed by the Senate. It was done as a Senate amendment which entirely replaced the text of an unrelated minor House bill, which is how the Senate bill got an "HR" bill number. They had to do it this way to skirt the Constitution, because the bill raises taxes, and Article 1, Sec. 7 says, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives."

Legally, there are three things they can do to get a bill passed:

1. The Senate can simply pass HR 3200, unaltered. (But they don't have the votes.)

2. The House can pass HR 3590, unaltered. (But they don't have the votes.)

3. The two bills (HR3200 & HR3590) could be reconciled in a conference committee, which tries to pick and choose between the provisions of the two bills, and produce a compromise which will be acceptable to both houses. Then the compromise bill should be sent to both houses for debate and votes -- and in the Senate, a possible filibuster.

That's how the legislative process works -- or how it always has, until now.

But the Democrats don't think they can actually come up with a compromise bill that will pass in both the House and Senate. So they're not even trying. In fact, they didn't even appoint a conference committee.

Instead, they plan to discard HR 3200, and "deem" HR 3590 to have passed the House, without the House members actually voting on it.

I'm not kidding.

The "deeming" will be a line in the budget reconciliation bill (which isn't actually a budget reconciliation bill at all). Obama will sign HR 3590 into law as soon as the House passes the reconciliation bill with the "deeming" line in it, pretending that the House's passing of the reconciliation bill with the deeming line is equivalent to them passing the original HR 3590 (which it obviously isn't). Then the reconciliation bill goes to the Senate, for debate and amendment and possible defeat. When the Senate parliamentarian rules that what the Democrats are trying to do out of order, they promise to bring in Biden (as President of the Senate) to lie & overrule the parliamentarian.

When the dust settles, they will have HR 3590 (the version that funds abortions) signed into law (regardless of whether the reconciliation bill ever passes), and yet the House will never have actually voted for it!

This is absolutely unprecedented, and the most blatantly crooked spectacle that I've ever seen in Congress.

Digression: The Democrats lack the 60 votes to pass it in the Senate because the newest Senator, Scott Brown, R-MA, is pledged to vote "no." [That pledge was a cornerstone of his improbable campaign to win the safest of safe Democratic seats.] If the Democrats had started with only 59 seats, they could have persuaded any of several liberal Republicans to join them. But since they didn't think they needed any Republican votes, they didn't bother with bipartisanship, or even basic courtesy. Now, thanks to the Massachusetts voters, they suddenly need one Republican vote, but it's too late: their bare-knuckles partisanship [and the voters' wrath] has burned that bridge: not even Olympia Snow will join them, now.

If the the Obama/Pelosi/Reed cabal actually succeed in this scheme, the lawsuits will immediately start, along with open revolt by some of the States, 37 of which are currently considering defiant State laws designed to thwart the federal takeover of healthcare, and one of which has already passed such a law.

James, if you really want Larry to never lie, you need to tell him to vote "NO" on this outrageous and unconstitutional power grab by the Democratic leadership.



I stopped reading at where it says "HR 3590 (which does fund abortions) was passed by the Senate." because it is simply a lie and it would violate the Hyde ammendment. So the rest must simply be crap like a lot of what precedes it. You thinks the bill is un-constitutional? File a lawsuit and we will see you in court. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."


The U.S. Catholic Bishops are generally liberal, and sympathetic to socialized medicine, but they are pro-life, and they can read. They've repeatedly debunked the Obama lie that HR 3590 would not fund elective abortions.

The truth is that if the Senate bill didn't actually fund abortions then it wouldn't matter whether it has a Stupak-Pitts amendment to prohibit funding elective abortions. Obviously. But the abortion industry worked hard to prevent the Stupak-Pitts language from being included in the Senate bill, because without it the bill does fund elective abortions.

That's why the otherwise-liberal Catholic Bishops oppose the Senate bill, HR 3590. Here's their rebuttal to the lies being spread by some of the bill's supporters.

A week earlier they released this Fact Sheet.

And here you can read where the Catholic Church stands on the Senate health bill


Oh, really

The bishops start right off in the second or third paragraph suggesting that supporters of the bill simply do what can't be done, and everything will be fine. The language they're asking for doesn't qualify for reconciliation.

Then they rely on theoretical and hypothetical arguments. Community Health Centers do not provide abortion services, but maybe they will decide to start doing that sometime in the future? And maybe they can somehow get around the Hyde amendment and use federal funds for that? Right, and maybe the sky will fall, but I'm not making plans for that eventuality.

Good presentation, Dave

I would think that if what is being presented by the Catholics is actually correct, then there would most certainly be a challenge to that specific part of the Senate bill in the courts. I am not prepared to argue this, to be honest. You have brought up very interesting presentations through the hyperlinks you have provided.

This is getting very interesting. Of course, I have no problem with taxpayer money providing people with making a choice on abortions since that procedure is legal even though I see the points being made via your links provided, but that is just me. In any case, you do make a very convincing argument here regardless of my disagreement on the issue.

Sorry, but I am not wrong

You are basing your whole argument on what the U.S. Catholic Bishops have to say? They are liberal? You are laughable and the Bishops are so wrong on this that the Nuns and the National Catholic Reporter, the largest Catholic publication in the U.S. have come out in support of the Health Care Reform bill and against the Bishops. What are you going to tell us next, the nuns are Pro-Choice now? The National Catholic Reporter Pro-Choice now? Stop being a jester and stop peddling lies. The Bishops are also entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts, and I will add regardless of what they might belive, they and the Pope are as falible as you and I. You are free to practice your religion as you wish, but don't even dare trying imposing it on me which is exactly what you are trying to do.

I admire your indignation

but in talking to Dave you are talking to a true believer in every sense of the word. He is right, divinely right, about every single thing he thinks, well on his way to being born again as Tim D'Annunzio.

I guess so,

but no indignation on my part. He can expect a lot of pushback in his attemtpt to establish a theocracy and reminded that lying is also a sin if he believes in sins.

One more thing

It is clear by your nickname that you are a staunch anti-abortionist. That is fine, don't have an abortion, but keep your morality to yourself and don't try to impose it on me. It's funny how some people are staunchly pro-life from conception to birth and then after birth tell people you are on your own.

This is the biggest misconception basquebob

The majority on the left are pro-Choice. They are not saying they are pro-Abortion. They are pro-CHOICE! This, to me and I honestly believe to most on the left, means that no one has a problem with being against abortion as a personal CHOICE. If someone is anti-abortion, then (as you say) "don't have an abortion". But, abortion is a legal procedure in the U.S. Has been for decades. People that do choose that option have a myriad reasons for doing so. Truth be known, many that fight so fervently against it would choose it themselves depending on circumstance. I am pro-Choice. But, for me, if my daughter were to get pregnant (for example) and wanted to abort her child because that pregnancy might hamper her love of dancing for 9 months or might keep her from smoking or something of that nature, I would try my best to talk her out of it. However, if the fetus was determined to be affected by some kind of abnormality that would see it as having a very poor quality of life, I would encourage her to abort and try again. In any case, it would be a CHOICE. It would not make me, in my mind, a monster if I suggested the abortion and it does not make me a rabid pro-lifer if I suggested having the baby. It would just be a CHOICE.

Why is that so difficult for the radical christian right in this country to understand?

Not a misconception on my part

Nor did I say pro abortion. In fact I never met anyone that had an abortion that liked having it but would have it again under similar circumstances. I am Pro-Choice and will fight for that right and against anyone trying to take that right away. I will also point out the hipocrisy of many of the "anti-abortionists".

Me too



basquebob wrote, "don't have an abortion, but keep your morality to yourself and don't try to impose it on me."

Bob, are you opposed to spousal abuse? What if I thought it was my right to beat my wife, and none of your business? If you told me that you opposed wife-beating, suppose I replied, "fine, don't beat your wife, but keep your morality to yourself and don't try to impose it on me." Would you buy that argument?

I asked James a question about this a while back, but he wouldn't answer. Nobody here would. I showed him two pictures of young Samuel Armas, taken 10 years apart, and asked why it would be a tragedy to harm him at the older age, and not at the younger. I'd like to ask you the same question. I'd post it for you, here, but James says he will ban me from bluenc if I post it again. So please view it in the older topic, here, if you are interested:


And you never answered my question

about why the death penalty (or life in prison) should not be imposed for women who have abortions. According to your rules they are committing murder. Why the double standard?

You've apparently forgotten my answer, James.

I answered your question, James -- twice, in fact.

You wanted to know why women who have abortions should be treated differently than other people who commit other homicides.

I answered here:
I said:

As for what punishments to mete out for the crime of abortion, when elective abortion is again made illegal, frankly, I'm not very concerned about the precise penalties, so long as it deters or otherwise prevents the crime. But you asked specifically about prison and capital punishment. So I'll answer.

The primary interest of society, and thus the primary purpose of prison and capital punishment, is to prevent future crimes. So the right question to ask is how best to stop this particular crime.

The answer is that we should stop the abortionists from performing elective abortions. If abortionists don't perform abortions, the babies will not be killed. It is far more efficient to go after the (few) abortionists than their (more numerous) customers.

So I'd prefer the more efficient solution. (I do recall that Sen. Paul Tsongas quipped, “If anyone thinks the words ‘government’ and ‘efficiency’ belong in the same sentence, we have counseling available,” which is about right, but we should nevertheless strive for as much efficiency as we can manage.)

You asked again, so I answered again, here:
I said:

You asked me to "make a compelling case" to justify differences in proposed penalties between killing a nine month old child and killing an unborn (9 day or week old) child by elective abortion, even though both are living human children deserving of protection.

My answer was based on practicality. The purpose of the punishment is to prevent the offense. Abortion is most efficiently prevented by applying the legal penalties to abortionists, rather than their customers. That is not the case for other homicides.

I've answered your question. Now you answer mine, please.

But you never did answer my question.

Neither did anyone else.

God, I hate this

You know, there may be people here on BlueNC that do not want to see that anymore. There may be people here on BlueNC that have seen it just one too many times. It no longer serves any purpose other than to re-ignite passions here and those passions, Dave, are not the ones you have.

I have one thing to say to you: IF YOU ARE AGAINST ABORTION, DON'T HAVE ONE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


That's good.

Foxtrot wrote, "God, I hate this."

That's good. You should be uncomfortable, Foxtrot. Perhaps your conscience is stirring.

If you could look at those two pictures of little Samuel without being uncomfortable, given your position, it would mean there was something seriously wrong with you.

In one picture his left hand is grasping a surgeon's fingertip, and in the other, 10 years later, at age 9.5, his same left hand is grasping an oar, with exactly the same thumb-over-the-end grip. How can you be comfortable with allowing him to come to harm at the former age if your heart would boil with righteous outrage over a harm to him at the later age?

It sounds to me like you are not completely comfortable with it, after all. Bravo!

I will answer your question with a question

how much did it cost to save that childs life and how many more died because of it? Why some kids lifes are more valuable than others? It's a tough question but a valid one. It happens everyday. So who's life is more valuable? The one of those that can afford better or more insurance or that can live in richer communities? Where do we put the better hospitals and closer to whom? Or could we put more hospitals if we did not spend so much on certain kind of resources at some hospitals and more people would survive? What do you have to say to the families of those 47,000 Americans that die every year because they did not have access to proper medical care because they lacked the economic resources? What makes you think that your moral standards are higher or better than mine? I am glad for the kid in the picture but you are only offering red herrings.

since you asked

I would tell your wife to call the police, file charges against you, divorce the bastard and ask that he be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

You see, I don't have the moral dilemma that you have because I don't share your concepts or "moral values" on abortion. I have told you that I respect your freedom to practice your beliefs as long as you don't impose those on me. There are no laws or proposed laws that will force you to have an abortion, but apparently you want to take the ability to have the choice of having an abortion if others want to. I am not trying to impose anything on you but you are trying to impose a moral code on me that I simply do not share with you. You are abusing my rights just as you would abuse your wife in the false parallel that you present. Last time I checked we are not a theocracy yet.