Well, after the whole kerfuffle about the interviews at the Saddleback Church with the two presumptive presidential nominees, and the topic of abortion, I’ve decided to finally spell out just what I think of the whole thing, how I’d like to see it resolved, why I think so, and how I got there.
I know some of you are just DYING to read it, too.
Well, I know that such discussions often get very, very heated, so I’ve postponed the piece until this afternoon, when I’ll have a better chance to police the comments and keep things from going utterly, completely, irredeemably hysterical. I’m not promising that it won’t happen, because I’m not infallible, and you might not agree with my definition of what’s “over the line,” but I think I’ve established what I consider tolerable and not, and I think that it’s generally accepted as fair.
And if you don’t accept it, tough. If you stroll down to the bottom of the second column, under “credits,” you’ll see whose name comes second. That says that what I says go, unless Kevin disagrees.
I consulted with two women I am very close to before publishing it. They’re two of the people I had in mind when writing the piece — one is very, very, very staunchly pro-life, the other pro-choice. (Yes, Candy, you’re one of them.) I expect both of them are dreading to read it, and I’ll probably get an earful or two from each. But I don’t think either of them will find it too objectionable.
I’m not allowing comments on this warning piece, because quite frankly I don’t want to start the fighting before anyone’s actually read my essay (word count: 1600 and change) and I’m ready to keep an eye on things.
It’s currently slated to publish around 5:00 p.m. Eastern, but I might play with that just a little.
See you this afternoon. I’ll be the one in the Kevlar/Nomex BVDs.