It's happened again. I am on the verge of deciding to spare the trees and put myself out of the Sun-Sentinel's dying agonies when Chan Lowe dissuades me. Whenever he blooms in the desert of the editorial page he keeps me subscribing -- but why not add his blog to that page and end the embarrassment it usually brings?

I think the real issue here is that we are all going through a hard economic time. The country has been supporting for too long women that keep bringing into the world too many children without a husband and support. I think she is doing this mostly for the money. She thinks she is Jon and Kate plus 8 or The Duggars. The main difference is that she is living off the taxpayers, endangering the children and sending a dangerous example of how to make lots of money the easy way. Don't give this woman a dime! We are already paying for her with disability and other expenses. I am disgusted with her.

Here we have yet another liberal writer supporting liberal issues. So should we have killed all those babies so that we don't have to support them an that would be "stimulating" to the economy like Nancy Pelosi suggested? Let's get rid of trhe people, after all, aren't THEY the real problem?

Chan, you are so right! I've been trying to figure out the same thing for the longest time. It is the biggest contradiction in the conservative movement. The conservatives want to save the babies (which is a very noble cause), but they don't want to help support the ones that can't be supported. Let's have all the babies but let them suffer...What would Jesus do?

Noel,

Mr. Lowe is in no way suggesting that
those babies should have been aborted.

What he is questioning is why Pro Lifers have not stepped up to the plate and
begun to financially support the 8 young
lives that have been brought into the
world. Isn't that what Pro Life is all
about?

There is a HUGE difference between the death penalty for someone who butchered your family and killing an innocent baby. In other words, severe penalties for the guilty, but none for the innocent.

The octuplet woman had no job, no way to support the six kids she already had, and yet went and had 8 more embryos implanted with no plan as to how to provide for the them. It wasn't some oversight or unplanned pregnancy. Even other doctors say the doctor who did it was being completely irresponsible and unethical. Maybe she should sue her doctor for "support."

Pro-choicers have been saying all along that they are the ones who care about children after they're born, and as proof they cite their willingness to expand hopelessly inefficient government programs, mostly through higher taxes.
Where are the NARAL schools, the NOW soup kitchens, the Planned Parenthood services to the indigent?
These charities put 95 percent or more into the services for the needy.
By the way, did you know the Catholic Church is the single largest provider of free and reduced-cost health care to AIDS patients, and has been for decades? That kind of news doesn't get out because it doesn't fit the bigoted notions that make liberals feel so good. (For example, check out the drawings of the pro-lifers in Lowe's cartoon.)
I agree there is a dichotomy regarding the willingness to go to any ends to save a fetal life, and the happy acceptance of the death penalty. All I can say is, I don't believe in either. All human lives are sacred.

Nadya Suleman, the California mother caught in a media frenzy after giving birth to octuplets, reportedly is looking to buy a home listed for more than a million dollars — news that follows on the heels of reports that her current home is facing foreclosure.

Maybe she should donate to us since she can afford a million dollar house or can she? Maybe she is just delusional. Or she will pay for for her million dollar house with donations.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,497104,00.html

Chan, that was the best laugh I've had in YEARS!
First, your clever cartoon with the empty box broke me up, but even better yet the 3/9 letter from the idiot reader who DIDN'T GET IT!