Sometimes, reading the letters printed in the Los Angeles Times is like watching a clumsy, arthritic, stoned clown breakdance in a funhouse mirror.

Brad Scabbard of Woodland Hills actually brings up some good points:

Judith Miller and David Samuels contend that it is not Islam but Islamic heretic extremists who are our enemies. Are they really saying that they know Islam better than the millions of Muslims who follow the Koran's injunctions regarding the infidel? Can they cite any influential non-jihadi imams who have publicly condemned the "extremists"? Have they read the Koran?

I've read up a little on Islam – mostly I did it before 9/11. But I can't tell you with any confidence who is practicing "real" Islam. Clearly, the majority of people identifying themselves as Muslims are not engaging in terrorism.

I can tell you that someone who tries to spread Christianity by the sword is not in line with Christian doctrine.

Frederic E. Bloomquist of San Pedro wrote:

When the George W. Bush administration decided to unilaterally invade Iraq based on a falsehood, we also acted as an extremist group, killing thousands of innocents.

Are you for real, Bloomquist?

The Bush administration, with the approval of Congress including Democrats, and the U.N., led a coalition into Iraq, as the existing regime there had demonstrably violated terms of the Gulf War cease fire. And yes, innocents died. That's war. We take steps not to kill innocents. Our enemies do not.

You have to check out the rest of his letter.

John C. Nangle of West Hollywood tries to equate Sharia law with our Constitutional system coupled with the presence of Roman Catholicism in our nation.

Governments should pursue the common good so that public order prevails despite differing opinion, even on theological issues.

Nangle says we should do something. From where does that obligation arise?

In the U.S., one such issue is availability of abortion, shaped by the religious views of a minority who dismiss factors that should guide public policy.

Really? Abortion isn't available? When was the last time Nangle tried to get one and had trouble? One need not be "religious" to oppose abortion, either. In addition, a majority of Americans want more restrictions on abortion.

It seems to be of little concern to them that the number of abortion-related injuries would increase by making abortion less available.

Would it really? Even so, it would reduce the number of slaughtered babies. Murder is a lot worse than self-inflicted injury.

On the contrary, we ought to base law on good public policy and shame those who would use religious coercion to try to get legislators to do otherwise.

It is up to each and every individual legislator which religion, if any, to practice.

Frank Ferrone of El Cajon wrote:

Ah, the joys of the "let the marketplace take care of itself" school of government. About 22 million Americans are suffering with the H1N1 virus, and one-third of the nation's workers don't have paid sick days. In other words, the sick must come to work or lose pay and be disciplined.

Mr. Ferrone, why do you assume that the service these workers provide is so worthless that employers won't want to retain them by coming up with a solution to this problem?

Joyce Moran of San Clemente wrote:

A vomiting food and beverage concierge was docked and disciplined by the Disneyland Hotel for leaving her shift early. I will never, ever set foot in that place again. I hope thousands of other people feel the same after reading this.

Mike Villano of Lake Balboa wrote:

That the Disneyland Hotel would deny sick days to its employees is not just morally reprehensible, it should also be criminal.

I suppose it is mere coincidence that the Disneyland Hotel is currently involved in a labor dispute with people who act like Disney kidnaps employees and forces them to work at gunpoint… I'm sure this has nothing to do with that story being included in the article or these letters being written. Nah, not at all.

I happen to know that Disney is ridiculously generous with sick days and attendance. The people who show up to work sick do so because they take so many other days off as "sick days" when they really aren't sick, that they run the risk of losing their jobs. If they wouldn't do that, they could easily call in sick when they really are sick.

Listen up, people. You apply for your jobs in this country. Don’t like it? Go somewhere better. Or create your own job.

What is that that saying? "Don't like abortion, don't have one"?

Yeah, well we don't want to pay for them, either.

So how about... "Want an abortion? You pay for it."

Or at least get other people who don't mind killing innocent human beings to pay for it.

You can often find something interesting to read when you check out the letters printed in the Los Angeles Times.  Today provides an example.

Governments in California - state, cities, school districts - have long had skyrocketing budgets, as though the good times of the dot-com boom and the run-up of property values (and thus property taxes) would continue without pause.  Now that there have to be some reductions in planned increases (since less tax money is coming in), or even actual cuts, some people write like it is the end of the world.  The Los Angeles Unified School District is canceling some summer school sessions, and that prompted the letters below.

Pam Poloski of Canoga Park wrote:

Oh, boo hoo. The LAUSD is canceling summer school for elementary and middle school kids, and parents don't know what they're going to do about child care.

The last time I checked, you went to school for an education, not for free baby-sitting. Having to go to summer school used to carry a stigma; you hadn't done well during the school year.

Or, in some cases, honors, gifted, or advanced placement students would use them to get ahead.  But Pam doesn't go far enough.  Why do we expect "the government" to provide schools at all?

Kate Robinson of Van Nuys wrote:

I have been a taxpayer in Los Angeles for 25 years but have never been able to avail myself of the public schools in my area because of the deplorable standards of the LAUSD.

I have had to pay for a private school with no tax breaks, and also pay for summer school. I did this as a single parent with no expectation of outside help.

Yup.  So many LAUSD schools are unusuable.

Tom Iannucci of Los Angeles, assistant principal at Daniel Webster Middle School, wrote:

And once again, who is affected the most? Our poor and disadvantaged.

Well, yeah, if they are dependent on the government, then cutbacks in government programs hurt them the most.  The government is us.  It relies on our tax money.  When we have less money, we pay less in taxes, and the government has to operate with less.  The LAUSD can't print money.  So the poor people who have become dependent on the government are going to suffer when the economy suffers.  Are only the rich to endure losses in a bad economy, compounded with even more of the tax burden?

Ronald Rubin of Topanga wrote:

You get what you pay for -- but Californians seem to feel ordained to be exempt from that obvious, simple rule.

Well, no, actually, we don't get what we pay for.  We pay more and get less than in other states.  Our teachers get paid more than teacher in most states, including Utah, yet Utah’s schools are much better.  We spend a lot more per prisoner than taxpayers in Florida, and still have courts saying we're not treating prisoners well enough.  Could it possibly be that government employee unions and those who do their bidding have made government labor more expensive than it should be?  Could it possibly be that the unions have prevented the elimination of waste and fraud in some programs, because it would reduce the number of union member (due payers)?  Could it be that millions of poor, unskilled illegal aliens are taking more from the system than they are contributing?  Could it be that our programs have attracted and incentivized dependency from other states and other countries?  Could it be that overly cautious environmental restrictions and litigation have added costs to doing anything?

Finally, Margot Wellner of Rancho Santa Margarita wants you to know that she had her baby killed:

Fourteen years ago, I wrote an anonymous letter to one of my hometown newspapers expressing my gratitude to the physician who was able to perform my late second-trimester abortion.

Have you ever seen a decent ultrasound session during the late second trimester?  I have.  If that's not a baby, then what is it?

I was relieved that he was well known in the ob/gyn community for the successful surgeries he provided that would still permit women to go on to sustain a pregnancy and have a safe delivery in spite of having undergone a midterm abortion.

You mean there are possible complications resulting from abortions?  Gee, I thought talk of that were just lies made up by pro-lifers to control your body!

Fast forward to 2009: I subsequently went on to have a successful second pregnancy and delivery, in middle age, and am the mother of a healthy child.

And does your child you know you killed his or her sibling, and were unable to effectively use one of a dozen forms of contraception, or make a decision about your pregnancy for many months?

I still fervently believe that safe, high-quality abortion services should be available to women everywhere.

Why stop there?  How about letting parents kill their toddlers in a safe, clean way?  You can't say "no" unless you are willing to personally adopt all toddlers.

[UPDATED]I usually do not condone breaking the law.

I do believe in self-defense, and protecting the innocent.

Will the slaying of George Tiller end up causing more harm than good?  There may have been some babies spared.  Maybe.  The women seeking late-term abortions may seek other abortionists.  Or perhaps they will be too frightened, or the abortionists will be too frightened.

Since abortion has become like a sacrament to some, I do not foresee the slaying of Tiller causing a shortage of people willing to slaughter these babies.

The Obama Administration may use this to crack down on pro-lifers in general.  Certainly many in the MSM and the abortion-loving public will use this against pro-lifers in general.

As I wrote first, I usually do not condone breaking the law.  On the other hand, I find it difficult to feel badly about the killing of Tiller, after what he has done to so many babies.  I'm just being honest - those are my thoughts and feelings.  Perhaps after I've had time to reflect on this more, I will have more to write.

UPDATE 6:15pm PDT: Pro-life Melinda, over at Stand To Reason, makes a good case for condemning Tiller's killer.  However, notice this pivotal paragraph:

In opposing this evil, one is justified in using only the degree of force necessary to stop any harm that it is within his power to prevent. Therefore, one is never justified in using lethal force when other measures are available.

For any baby (viable, by the way) facing abortion tomorrow, what could those other means be?  When you read about enslaved people in, say, 1855 - killing their murderous slavemaster, do you really get upset about it?  I don't advise that people kill abortionists.  But I have a hard time feeling sympathy for the abortionist, especially one who is performing late-term abortions.  As a father who has felt my children moving in the womb, and has seen them on ultrasounds, I know that it is wrong to kill them - and it being wrong has nothing to do with whether or not my wife or I want to deal with them.

Abortion mills are reporting a "record number" of kills.  Kimi Yoshino reports in the Los Angeles Times.

As the economy worsens, some Planned Parenthood clinics are reporting a record number of abortions. Other women's health agencies say they are experiencing heavier call volumes, more visits and more requests for abortion funding.

Isn't it nice that your tax money is being sucked down a sink, along with a dead baby?

Quantifying the increase is difficult since the most recent statistics are several years old. In California, the most recent data on abortions funded through Medi-Cal, which provides healthcare for the poor, is from 2005, when the state paid for an estimated 94,600 abortions for poor women.

Safe, legal, and rare?

Lopez said most women recently getting abortions already have families, contrary to the stereotype of the childless abortion seeker.

"Women are really having to make thoughtful decisions whether now is the right time to get pregnant or not," she said.

Well, by then, you are already pregnant.  Having an abortion doesn't mean you were never pregnant.  In fact, it requires pregnancy.  Duh.

And how do you explain this one to the kids?  "Hey, I killed your little sister, so I'm no longer pregnant.  Aren't you glad you won't have to share your stuff with her?  Better hope the economy doesn't get worse, or I'll have to take you camping and bring along a shovel."

For women already struggling to make ends meet, paying for an abortion can be difficult, clinic officials said. As they scramble for money -- and week after week passes -- the cost of an abortion increases from about $450 for a first-trimester abortion to $1,200 in the second trimester.

Does that include twins?  How much for third trimester?

I wonder what the statistics are like when it comes to women of all income levels when the "sperm donor" is a low income earner vs. a high income earner.  I suspect these women are less likely to seek abortions if the guy is rich, even if they aren't a couple.  Hey, if you can exact "child" support that is many times higher than it costs or raising a child... well, that is something that can be too good to pass up.

Reading about abortions is especially disturbing to me as my wife is currently pregnant.  Do any of these women see a decent ultrasound session, first?  I don't see how they could and still go through with it.

I get a kick when people defend Planned Parenthood by claiming that abortion makes up "only" 3% of the organization's services.

If spent only 3% of my time killing people, including for the purposes of covering up statutory rape, would that make it okay?

My guess is most people convicted or murder in this country spent way less than 3% of their time involved in murdering or related activities.

And Planned Parenthood using Mother's Day as a fundraising theme is like al-Qaeda using Memorial Day.  What's next?  PETA holding a BBQ?  The ACLU wishing us all a Merry Christmas?

Garrett Therolf and Kim Christensen of the Los Angeles Times, as a follow-up to yesterday's story on the death of children in Los Angeles County who had been checked on by social workers, had more depressing information today.

In 2007, the number was 12, according to figures released Tuesday. In 2006, the number was 14. The types of systemic failures that led to the deaths also were the same... In addition to the 14 cases where abuse or neglect was determined to cause the deaths in 2008, supervisors were notified of 154 deaths that occurred the same year from other causes, including accidents, shootings, and natural or undetermined reasons.

How can we be doing this to our children?  I fear abortion-on-demand as a "right" has made us numb.

Maybe it is time local government get out of things like, oh, Affirmative Action Compliance and Human Relations, and instead focus more resources on saving children.

If you want to read something really depressing, especially for parents, click through to read this Los Angeles Times article by Garrett Therolf and Kim Christensen, about fourteen children neglected or abused to death last year in Los Angeles County.  What sets these children apart is that they were already being "watched" by social workers.

All told, the records show, 32 children in the county died in 2008 from abuse and neglect, including physical assault, drowning and malnourishment. Eighteen of the children were in families that had never been in contact with the family services agency.

But the other 14 families should have been well-known to child welfare officials, based on previous referrals and investigations. For whatever reasons, many of the earlier allegations were not substantiated.

Wasn't easy access to legal abortion-on-demand (and now, "safe surrender" too) going to end child abuse?  Yeah, somehow, that didn't happen.

There are some things to keep in mind:

• There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of children in Los Angeles County, as the total population is over ten million.  Still, 32 children is 32 too many.
• These are deaths.  There are, of course, other children who are neglected or severely abused and not killed.
• This is the kind of thing we need to keep in mind when “Child Protective Services” pokes around.  Better to err on the side of saving a child’s life than to have a child killed because a family’s privacy was too important.
• Children are more likely to be abused if they are being exposed to a parent’s new “honey” or date.

I am strongly pro-choice.  Here's a classic Playful Walrus entry explaining what I mean.

Recently, I got some negative feedback when I talked about the rise in premature births, and off-handedly mentioned how the March of Dimes uses that as a main fundraising push.  I questioned if the figures cited take into account that some premature births may be caused by obesity (which has increased in recent years) and "reproductive technology" (which really began in recent years).

Well, I came across something else that may also be contributing the prematurity rate increase: abortion.  According to some, there is a link between abortion and subsequent prematurity.  Apparently, the March of Dimes doesn't like to talk about that.  (Ooh, it is a pro-life website, so I guess my critics will say they can't be believed.  Yes, we can only believe something is a negative side effect of abortion if abortion providers publicize that as being true.)

Now, please note that I'm not saying reducing or treating birth defects is an unworthy cause, because it is definitely a worthy cause, depending on methods – as is fighting prematurity.  But I do not think it is responsible to alarm people about an increase in prematurity rates without noting that we do already know some of the causes, and they are voluntarily acquired and can be avoided.

Oh, it is worth nothing that the March of Dimes benefits from abortions if it is acquiring, or funding those who acquire, "fetal tissue" obtained by abortion for research.  Also, the March of Dimes supports Embryonic Stem Cell Research.  Such cells are obtained by killing human beings.

So, thanks to my critics for inspiring me to look into that more.

And remember – if you want to fight prematurity, don't be obese and don't abort your baby.

I explore that question over at The Opine Editorials.  Here is a taste.

Regarding abortion:

One woman gets pregnant, there is a split, the other woman - who has paid for the reproductive medical treatments, perhaps donated the eggs, and wants the children - sues to block abortion. Currently, a wife can get an abortion even if her husband objects. Will "gay rights" trump abortion rights?

...   ...   ...

I do not believe that the voluntary association of a man and a woman is the same kind of voluntary association as two women or two men, and I do not see a moral or legal obligation for the state to treat all three as the same. I see a state interest in licensing and encouraging natural marriage that is not met in either of the other two kinds of unions. It is obvious to me that what keeps same-sex "marriage" and natural marriage from being equal has less to do with state licensing requirement and more to do with the nature of the sexes and the differences between them.

I'm glad we're birthing enough Americans to perpetuate ourselves, but I'd like to see more of those births happen within wedlock.  My analysis of today's news is over at The Opine Editorials.

Whitman looks a little green in this Los Angeles Times piece by Michael Finnegan.  Then again, she is a little green.  But if the main problem facing the state is fiscal, maybe people will want a businessperson who is not a politician.  Like Schwarzenegger.  Oops... well, never mind.

In a wide-ranging interview, the first-time Republican candidate's demeanor vacillated between that of a confident, take-charge chief executive officer delivering a PowerPoint presentation to that of an ill-at-ease novice who has studied stacks of policy binders, but has yet to master the art of political maneuvering.

"I don't know the answer to that question," Whitman responded when asked her stand on school vouchers, a perennial issue of importance to the conservatives who dominate her party's primary.

Here’s the answer "Vouchers are better than what we have now.  But we really need separation of state and school."  At least, that is the correct answer.  It probably would ensure you wouldn't get elected, though.

Explaining her support for Proposition 8, the November measure that banned same-sex marriage, she called it a "matter of personal conscience and my faith."

But Whitman, a Presbyterian who supports gay civil unions, said the thousands of same-sex marriages that took place last year before the ban should be legally recognized -- a sentiment opposed by many Proposition 8 backers. Moreover, she said, gay and lesbian couples should be able to adopt children.

She has the (California) centrist position in this area.

"One of the things which I'm sure you know," she said, "is that 1% of the people in California pay 50% of the taxes, right? And I am not in favor of raising taxes on anyone right now."

Good for her.

At the same time, however, Whitman said Tuesday that schools, hospitals and law enforcement agencies should be required to report undocumented immigrants to federal authorities. She later backtracked on schools, saying, "I want to think about that a little bit." She also said she opposed the issuance of drivers' licenses for those in the country illegally.

We should be billing the federal government, or the country of citizenship.

Whitman also cited economic concerns as she expressed an openness to new offshore oil drilling, a stand that has harmed other Republicans seeking statewide office. New drilling techniques, she said, might offset the environmental risk.

Oil is natural.

"This is something that I've done before," Whitman said of her fiscal recovery plans. "I think maybe it is about time for a governor who has created jobs, who's managed a budget, who's led and inspired large organizations, who listens well, and who can drive an agenda."

She needs to have an answer for all of the issues facing California, even if the answer is "I will investigate this more."  She also needs to point out the importance of voters installing a state legislature that favors limiting government.  So perhaps she should add "...once I know what composition we'll have in the legislature."

On the main Townhall.com blog, a commenter noted that Whitman isn't pro-life, to which I noted:

If the choice I have for California Governor is:

1. abortion supporter who will push for more socialism and increase the power of the Left in California

or

2. abortion supporter who is more fiscally responsible and may decrease the power of the Left in California...

I will choose option 2.

How likely is it that the states will have any say in abortion in the coming decade anyway?  Not likely at all.  If we're going to change abortion law, we need a President who will pick the right judges and and a Senate who will confirm them.  That, or a Constitutional Amendment.  Again - how likely are those?  We need to persuade people not to get abortions.

I thought the "right" to abortion-on-demand was supposed to prevent "back-alley" abortions?  Not so, apparently.

...and then kill most of them.  That's what some people are saying.

Yesterday’s Los Angeles Times had an article, an editorial and a commentary on the recent birth of octuplets.  Shari Roan and Jeff Gottlieb have the article.

The chances that the eight babies born Monday were conceived naturally are infinitesimal, infertility specialists and doctors in maternal-fetal medicine say. Today's reproductive experts have the tools and the know-how to avoid such high-risk pregnancies -- and often try desperately to do so.

It is easy to avoid them – abstain.  Or don’t use drugs to treat infertility that cause the release of multiple eggs.  Or don't conceive so many embryos to be implanted.

Ovarian stimulation is far less controllable than in vitro fertilization, Swamy said, "because you can't control how many embryos you put back."

You see – with IVF, they can simply kill the "extra" human beings before they can be implanted.

If patients choose to proceed with the treatment -- even facing the potential of a large number of eggs being released -- they can later abort some of the embryos if a higher-order pregnancy occurs.

Yes, just kill off some of the babies.  Let's go through any length to avoid being childless or resorting to... gasp... adoption!

Many patients dislike this practice, called selective reduction, said Dr. Harold Henry, director of maternal-fetal medicine at Kaiser Permanente. Some have religious or ethical objections to aborting any of the fetuses; others don't want to risk losing the entire pregnancy.

Imagine how bizarre that some people are... not wanting to kill their own offspring.

That's just what William H. Woodwell Jr., author and parent to premature twins, encouraged in his commentary.

It is no coincidence that premature births in this country have risen at the same time that more women are undergoing fertility treatments. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the rate of preterm births in the United States -- defined as birth at less than 37 completed weeks of gestation -- has risen by 36% since the early 1980s. Nearly 536,000 babies were born too soon in 2006.

One of the main reasons for the growing number of preterm births is a high number of births of twins and "higher-order multiples," all of which are more likely to come into the world too soon. Triplet-and-higher births increased nearly fivefold from 1980 to 1998 before leveling off over the last decade, and experts attribute the bulk of the rise to "assisted reproduction."

It never occurred to me, when listening to appeals from the March of Dimes to fight rising levels of prematurity, that we could lower the prematurity rate by simply not using these drugs.

The presence of three to eight fetuses, of course, does not have to result in the birth of three to seven children. Thanks to a procedure called multifetal reduction, parents have the ability to reduce the number of fetuses and therefore limit the risks to the mother and the remaining babies.

Don't you just love euphemisms?  Multifetal reduction?  And murderers are simply engaging in "population calming".  Killing my toddler might also limit risks to my wife and any subsequent children we have.  It doesn't mean it is the right thing to do and I'd rather die than do it.

It is obviously a difficult and painful decision for prospective parents, but the bottom line is that multifetal reduction can vastly reduce the chances of an extremely premature birth and other complications.

So would adoption, and nobody has to die!

But multifetal reduction, which involves the elimination of one or more fetuses by injection during the first trimester, is no different from an abortion in the minds of many.

Yeah, strange, isn't it?  Just like for some people there's no difference between an unplanned vertical water landing of an airliner and an airplane crashing into the ocean.

Multifetal reduction, of course, confuses the abortion issue because it introduces a situation in which abortion might, in fact, be necessary in order to save the lives of the mother and the remaining fetuses. But the pro-life lobby prefers to avoid such nuances, and insists that there is no difference between multifetal reduction and a random abortion of an unwanted child.

Well, you're right.  There is a difference between a desperate teenager who was on the pill and whose partner was using condoms who goes for an abortion of an ectopic pregnancy and an established, married couple with health insurance who have deliberately created - or greatly increased the risk of creating - multiple babies at the same time and want to kill off some because they might have health problems.

One such step is obvious: We need to get a better handle on the administration of fertility treatments in this country.

How?  We learned last year that people have a right to have such treatments as IVF. 

In addition, when fertility treatments yield triplets or more, we need to promote responsible decision-making on the part of parents -- chiefly, by encouraging or even somehow requiring them to engage in multifetal reduction.

You seem a tad bloodthirsty, sir.

Oddly, finishes off with this...

Babies are a miracle -- whether they arrive in a group of eight or an army of one. And, because they are a miracle, we need to do everything we can to ensure that they survive and live a rewarding life.

So eight babies are a miracle, but we should meet that miracle by killing six of the babies.  Go figure.

Not only is there a right to IVF, according to a court, but I understand that we are supposed to have a right to privacy, especially medical privacy, and reproductive rights.  Surely if reproductive rights means the right to abort our reproduction, then they also mean the right to continue with our reproduction.  Or is this one of those strange rights that is only a right if we make the choice the people in power desire?  Because, if we don't have the right to have as many babies as we want, then "reproductive rights" means nothing more than the right to a dead baby – as shown in those "wrongful birth" cases.

The paper also ran this editorial that doesn’t actually say much at all.