Say Anything Blog

Can we abort the abortionists after they’ve been born?

How ‘bout we puncture the back of Betty Friedan‘s skull, suction her brains out and call the entire endeavor ’choice?’

...for great justice

Yessur.

On this we couldn’t agree more!

the AVATAR
Old Tigers are more dangerous when they believe this could be their last hunt.

From , “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”
Old tigers, sensing the end,
they’re at their most fierce. 
And they go down fighting.

"Pro-choice” is such a misnomer. The dead don’t have a choice.

Rob,

When it comes to abortion they’re all “keep the government away from our bodies.”

That’s why I’m pro-choice.

they’re pro-choice because they want to be able to dispose of any unwanted and unborn children before they actually have to deal with the consequences of their irresponsible sex lives

That’s also why I’m pro-choice.

For me, it’s about limiting government AND cynical barbaric convenience.

AND

I vote conservative because conservatives are about small government, and all that pro-life nonsense = the democrats’ populist universal healthcare nonesense. No one is turning Roe v. Wade over anymore than impoverishing our country with universal health (those are both demogogic talking points and nothing more).

ALSO

That’s the big lie behind the pro-choice movement.

I don’t think most pro-choicers are against big government, many just want to be able to have abortions. You assumed what you set out to prove, that’s called circular reasoning.

Minor point: Despite the fact that I’ve disagreed with you on some other issues, I’ve only ever been able to point out purely logical flaws in your reasoning when you post about abortion—odd that.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

I vote conservative because conservatives are about small government, and all that pro-life nonsense = the democrats’ populist universal healthcare nonesense.

You might have a point, except that in order to get there you have to ignore the fact that abortion is murder.  When a woman gets pregnant a life is created, and I fail to see why that life’s rights hinge on nothing other than the “choice” of the mother.

It’s not logical, just convenient.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Despite the fact that I’ve disagreed with you on some other issues, I’ve only ever been able to point out purely logical flaws in your reasoning when you post about abortion—odd that.

But there are no flaws in my reasoning on abortion.  Life begins at conception.  Even doctors agree on this.  The only reason we define unborn children as not living is for the convenience of abortion.

Again, life begins at conception and is an uninterrupted continuum of development and growth until death by natural causes.

Or a doctor punctures the little tyke’s skull and sucks the brains out.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

I meant purely logical flaws in your post’s reasoning, not in your general reasoning about abortion. There is a difference between description and prescription, you are perfectly entitled to your values; it’s when you try to prove that your values are better than others that you run into the is-ought gap.

Here’s an example:

When a woman gets pregnant a life is created, and I fail to see why that life’s rights hinge on nothing other than the “choice” of the mother.

I hate to do this (because I don’t believe in the following), but I can easily make the argument that we make a “choice” to kill people when we deny them universal healthcare. We could, after all, with one choice (and a little sacrifice) save millions of LIVES.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

but I can easily make the argument that we make a “choice” to kill people when we deny them universal healthcare. We could, after all, with one choice (and a little sacrifice) save millions of LIVES.

Looking at the cancer survivor rates between the US and Canada/Great Britain/etc., I actually don’t think you can make that case at all.

There is a difference between description and prescription, you are perfectly entitled to your values; it’s when you try to prove that your values are better than others that you run into the is-ought gap.

But we impose values on others every day.  Do I run into an “is-ought gap” when I impose my values about rape on rapists?  Is your line of argument, in defense of mothers killing their babies for no other reason than those babies being inconvenient, that we can’t impose values on others?

Because that’s pretty absurd in its own right.

Abortion is murder.  Pro-choicers could at least be honest enough to confess to the monstrous nature of their beliefs.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

This is a 2 part question:
#1. Is it Human Life?
It is no longer just the religious zealots & Christians claiming that it IS human life.  Doctors and scientist are also concurring that it is NOT a blob of tissues.  It is human life, and that fact can no longer be disputed.

#2. Why are we as a society allowing human life to be destroyed?  What is it that makes the baby’s life less valuable than the mother’s life? 

Our society tries to tell you that if you are old, cripple, paralyzed, unwanted, or not contributing to society in a “visible” way, then your life is worthless and you can be eliminated from the gene pool. 

The pro choice views are now:  Well, yes it’s human life, but it’s inconvenient so lets kill it.

8 weeks and a beating heart starts in the womb.  Is that when life begins?
But, Carl Sagan once talked about how killing an 8 month baby was equivalent to the killing of an animal of equivalent consciousness; a dog, dolphin, and or even insect.

My thoughts? A woman who has sex unprotected by HER consent should bear all the burdens of a child.  Rich or poor, drunk or sober, it was her choice.  She was conscious of it.  She had better bear the choice she makes rather than cheat it by such a weighty consequence. Grrrr..

But, if it’s incestuous rape, or just rape, I’d have to say she has more of a right to deny the birth of the child.

Move_Zig: out of pure curiosity, does Betty Friedan really support pro-choice?!  I know she’s all about the choice of women, but is she about this?

I have always wanted a clear answer from liberals to one question about abortion: How can the fetus be no more than a mass of tissues not unlike a tumor when the mother and an abortionist wants to terminate its existence; but, if someone causes that fetus to abort by an act of violence or carelessness causing an accident, it is a human being and criminal charges and/or civil penalties can be levied against the party causing the death?

A fetus cannot be a non-human being in case of abortion or a human being in case of violence or an accident. It is either one thing or the other. Surely, no one, not even the mother can have the right to decide on their own whether or not a fetus is a human being.

So, if liberals say a fetus is just a mass of tissue, if a man kicks the woman in the gut and she aborts the tumor, the most he can be charged with is assault and battery with intent ot do bodily harm and unlawful external surgery to remove a tumor. On the other hand, if a fetus is a human being then to terminate its life via abortion is an act of cold-blooded murder by the mother and abortionist. Now which is it?

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Shrug. I didn’t intend to have a moral debate—which seems to me all that anti-abortionists are capable of.

We (ideally) don’t legislate morality, if we did, we would be citizens of a theocracy, not a democracy. Roe v. Wade was, in fact, decided in order to correct this very problem.

So frankly, I don’t care if abortionists are killing a mass of tissues or a human being. There are plenty of situations where our laws condone the killing of living beings (ex: the death penalty). So please don’t mix your moral arguments into legal discourse.

The question is really a matter of which is better for our society (THATs why we have laws): Is it more important to have a right to privacy or to protect unborn life? I think it’s the former, you are free to argue the latter, just don’t do it under the twisted auspices of absolute logic—for every logical argument that you raise to the latter, I can offer an equally valid for the former.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Is it more important to have a right to privacy or to protect unborn life? I think it’s the former,

Your right to privacy ends when it affects the life of another human being.

Your right to privacy ends when it affects the life of another human being.

Or… not. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Guess you haven’t been keeping up with the case law.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Hairy:

So please don’t mix your moral arguments into legal discourse.

Who made you god and said you get to set the rules of debate here pal? If you don’t like the manner I or others debate, too damn bad!

There are plenty of situations where our laws condone the killing of living beings (ex: the death penalty).

(1) Murder, the deliberate taking of the life of an innocent human being is against the law. (2) The death penalty involves the state sanctioned termination of the life of a person found guilty of murder, for the good of society and to exact the ultimate penalty. (3) A fetus is a wholly innocent human being, and yet by your own words you have no problem allowing a mother to kill an innocent human being, an act of cold-blooded murder for financial reasons, because she was too damn lazy to use contraceptives or because she just finds them inconvenient to her lifestyle. (4) The latter seeming to be your views, what is wrong with killing that innocent human being an hour, a day, a week, a month or longer after birth? Let the mother just off her children at any age if they are inconvenient to her. (5) I’ll bet you are in favor of physician assisted suicide and both active and passive euthansia? (6) In other words, it seem you feel that any human life that does not meet your approval, for whatever reason, they can be killed without penalty? Well, except I’ll bet you are against the death penalty? How about conservatives, let’s kill them all, okay?

not. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Guess you haven’t been keeping up with the case law.

Case law, even SCOTUS decisions are not the holy grail, they can be and often are based on poor law and are even unconstitutional, and then the liberals dig up stare decisis to say that despite Roe v Wade being unconstitutional and based on poor law, it becomes settled law, in effect amending the Constitution because of a bullshit theory of settled law based on the need to abide by decided cases.

To allow that theory to exist we must apologize to the Nazi’s for killing Jews and others, because after all, it was legal. Those damn Jews were sent to camps and killed by judicial decree. There was plenty of case law. Who are we to say they were wrong? These damn Jews were inconvenient to have around, they were socially, politically and economically undesireable, so just kill them, right?

To deliberately, consciously take the life of an innocent human being has always been 1st Degree Murder, it is now and always shall be, despite the liberals love of the cultuire of death and their belief in their peculiar right to decide if a human being is politically, socially or morally acceptable to them. If not, kill them, right?

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

In other words, it seem you feel that any human life that does not meet your approval, for whatever reason, they can be killed without penalty?

Unless we have laws that say otherwise, yes.

Well, except I’ll bet you are against the death penalty?

Nope. In fact, your attempts to neatly box me into a “values paradigm” illustrate your ignorance.

Case law, even SCOTUS decisions are not the holy grail, they can be and often are based on poor law and are even unconstitutional, and then the liberals dig up stare decisis to say that despite Roe v Wade being unconstitutional and based on poor law, it becomes settled law, in effect amending the Constitution because of a bullshit theory of settled law based on the need to abide by decided cases.

I’m not sure how you propose to run a common-law system without stare decisis. ALL SCOTUS decisions are constitutional until overruled. That’s how the system works, if you don’t like the fundamental rules governing our society, move to another country.

To allow that theory to exist we must apologize to the Nazi’s for killing Jews and others, because after all, it was legal.

Prime example of how casuistry got its bad name.

My friend, you smear shit on the very face of logical discourse. It’s scary.

To deliberately, consciously take the life of an innocent human being has always been 1st Degree Murder, it is now and always shall be, despite the liberals love of the cultuire of death and their belief in their peculiar right to decide if a human being is politically, socially or morally acceptable to them. If not, kill them, right?

No. This is more flawed casuistry on your part. Please come up with better analogies next time.

P.S., Please notice that I have yet to argue for or against abortion—just your bad logic pertaining thereto.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

In other words, it seem you feel that any human life that does not meet your approval, for whatever reason, they can be killed without penalty?

Unless we have laws that say otherwise, yes.

we are supposed to have a “government of the people, by the people and for the people”

The majority of people think it is incorrect to kill the unborn for social reasons.  The majority of the people do not agree with Roe v Wade Even Ms. Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade states:
“Our education should be focused on exposing abortion for what it is: the killing of an innocent.”

The current law is incorrect and will be overturned as more and more people realize the truth behind abortion.

I’m not sure how you propose to run a common-law system without stare decisis. ALL SCOTUS decisions are constitutional until overruled. That’s how the system works, if you don’t like the fundamental rules governing our society, move to another country.

(1) Who is going to overrule SCOTUS? As a matter of fact, in a three separate but equal branches of government every branch has an equal duty and responsibility to interpret the Constitution and even defy the SCOTUS if they believe that branch have misinterpreted the Constitution.
(2) For lower court judges or even SCOTUS to make make laws that violate the Constitution and then justify it by stare decisis is to amend the constitution outside the Amendment process, which is only to be decided by the people, not judges, the legislature or any other governing body. So in Rove v Wade the SCOTUS made bad law, they invented a constitutional right that did not exist, thus violating the Constitution. Then by virtue of stare decisis Roe V Wade it becomes accepted law and amends the Constitution outside the Constitutionally mandated amendment process. That is unconstitutional!
(3) I like the Constitution as written by our Founding Father’s and while not always to my liking I accept the lawful Constitutional Amendments by a vote of the people. It is you that does not like these fundamental rules that were designed to run this country, as you seem to have disdain for the Constitution. Maybe you should get your liberal ass out of the country.

You self define logical discourse according to your socialist principles and attack me for defending the Constitution and life because I won’t obey your bullshit, dictatorial rules. There are certain core moral principles that must rule any civilized nation and that must be enacted into law; and the most fundamental of them all is that murder is morally and thus must be legally wrong, no matter how liberals try and define it, and abortion is First Degree Premeditated Murder and must be held to be against the laws of humanity.

The Left is part and parcel of the culture of death in this country, arguing in favor of murder whether it be abortion, passive or active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide; and any civilized people that wants to remain free and safe in their person must oppose this culture of death, even if it means taking up arms against the government, or they shall not remain free or safe from the state.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.” Patrick Henry 1776

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” John Quincy Adams 6th US President and son of John Adams

“The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.” The US Congress 1782

“We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.” - James Madison

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity religion and morality are indispensable supports.” George Washington

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” - Thomas Jefferson

Our Founding Father’s, while not desirous of a theocracy as a form of government and understandigng the dangers government is to true faith, desired a secular nation that was built upon the Judeo-Christian moral principles, while prohibiting the government from meddling in religiuous worship. In our National Charter, The Declaration of Independence, our dependence upon Nature’s God as the sole guarantor of our liberty was made clear and our Laws & By-Laws, the Constitution, enacted into those social-moral principles into our laws, by which we would govern a free, religious minded people. To suggest that murder of innocent human beings in the womb based on a nebulous principle of a right to privacy was at all anticipated by or would ever be countenanced by our Founding Father’s is to make a complete, deliberate lie out of our early history and the social-moral priciples that ruled the hearts of these great men as they crafted the documents that established our liberty. They would not ever accept any such definition of our Constitution.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Our Founding Father’s foresaw an indissoluble link between our Christian Faith and our Liberty and our Laws, and without that link they declared this nation would not long stand. But, some comenting here believe they possess greater wisdom than our Founding Fathers.

“The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: ‘that God governs in the affairs of men.’ And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” - Benjamin Franklin

“Our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be entrusted on any other foundation than religious principle, not any government secure which is not supported by moral habits.... Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens.” - Daniel Webster

“If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a Nation gone under.” - Ronald Reagan

“I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am perfectly satisfied that the Union of the States in its form and adoption is as much the work of a Devine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testaments.” - Benjamin Rush

“There is not a truth to be gathered form history more certain, or more momentous, than this: that civil liberty cannot long be separated from religious liberty without danger, and ultimately without destruction to both. Wherever religious liberty exists, it will, first or last, bring in and establish political liberty.” - Joseph Story, Congressman and Supreme Court Justice

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority for that law which is divine...far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.” - James Wilson (signatory of the Constitution)

“(T)he propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained” - George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

The 1973 decision Roe v Wade was based on doctors testimony from the technology of the time. Today the technology we have proves that the fetus is much more than a “blob of cells”. Anyone who believes abortion is a blob of cells up until the 3rd month is kidding themselves! It is a self centered, selfish act that is used to interrupt a pregnancy. Prevention or contraception is usually avoided by abortionist’s. Aborting a pregnancy should be few and far between. AND only used to protect the mothers life. BUT instead multi millions of abortions have been preformed and the true beneficiaries are the abortion clinics who rake in BIG money! Try getting an abortion at Planned Parenthood without money! It won’t happen.

Zsa Zsa: Thanks, good stuff!

New Planned Parenthood Commercial:
“Forgot the contraceptives, too lazy to make the guy put on a condemn? Hey a baby is inconvenient right now, you can’t afford a kid, but hey you are knocked up baby. Don’t worry, we’ll kill the little bastard for you and hey, we’ll call it “choice! Oh, and guess what, we’ll make the taxpayers pay for your fun!”

It should be available to save the life of the mother, that would make it available and safe, but rare.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

It should be available to save the life of the mother, that would make it available and safe, but rare.

so killing babies is ok then?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court DID NOT affirm a constitutional right to an abortion. The court ruled that anti-abortion laws placed an undue burden on a woman’s right to privacy, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The difference is substantial.

The tortured logic of the court only confirms why we must do everything we can to elect a republican president and continue the nomination of strict constructionist judges to the bench begun last year by President Bush. Former president George H. W. Bush demonstrated it can be done, even with a democtratic majority in the senate.

More than anything else, this election is about the Supreme Court.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT TWO THINGS: WINNING THE WAR ON TERRORISM AND SAVING THE SUPREME COURT.

Move_Zig: out of pure curiosity, does Betty Friedan really support pro-choice?!  I know she’s all about the choice of women, but is she about this?
dirl126 on January 23, 2008 at 12:38 pm

I suppose if one plugs her name into a search engine, you may find your answer.  Thus:

Betty Friedan: “Abortion - A Woman’s Civil Right”

Betty Friedan is best known for her feminist classic, The Feminine Mystique.The book played a tremendous role in sparking second wave feminism. The 1963 best seller made the point that women are people too, or that women are more than merely the mothers, sisters and wives of men. It was a point that both law and custom denied.
...
Friedan was one of the founders of the National Organization for Women (NOW), the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) and the National Women’s Political Caucus. She served as the first president of NOW.

Further search would give you a more detailed answer to include whether the partial birth murder method was included under her concept of ‘choice,’ but I’ll leave that up to you.  Report back to us with your results by tomorrow morning.

And no cheating, don’t try calling Betty herself.  She’s roasting down in Hell, having died at the age of 85.

Ding Dong....

...for great justice

Right on brohta!

[Feet make good soup!]

Hairy Polemic - I vote conservative because conservatives are about small government, and all that pro-life nonsense = the democrats’ populist universal healthcare nonesense.

That’s silly.

I liken abortion to an innocent death. One of government’s proper roles is preventing innocent deaths, especially one as egregious as a killed innocent death.

In light of this, the “keep the government away from our bodies” claim is narcissistically self absorbed. We’re talking about someone else‘s body here. This is an important distinction that is usually lost among the self proclaimed “pro-choice”.

Hairy Polemic - We (ideally) don’t legislate morality, if we did, we would be citizens of a theocracy, not a democracy.

Wait, huh? Are you telling us that morality is in the sole province of religions? Do you know what that word means?

You say that you “didn’t intend to have a moral debate” and then you tell us that you “don’t care if abortionists are killing a mass of tissues or a human being.” As if you don’t expect some kind of moral response to that garbage.

You’re a confused chap.

Reality Bob, There are a few times when a woman is pregnant that it will be impossible for her to have the baby. An ectopic pregnancy is outside the uterus and inside the fallopian tube.  This type of pregnancy makes it impossible for the baby to live and also will kill the mother. This is one example of where aborting the pregnancy is necessary.

This type of pregnancy makes it impossible for the baby to live and also will kill the mother. This is one example of where aborting the pregnancy is necessary.

I’m not expecting the general population to understand that there is a difference in how one saves the life of the mother in the example of an ectopic pregnancy, but this might help:

“The removal of the fallopian tube where the fetus has been implanted is the moral way of taking care of the mother, however, the fetus does die. In this act, the indirect dead of another (the fetus) is the secondary effect of the good/indifferent act of the removal of the infected fallopian tube. Methotrexate cannot be used because it directly kills the fetus.  The fact that the child will not survive is not relevant to the action. “

Also please note, that of all the abortions performed in the US less than 1% of them are due because of Rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

hahah. Move_Zig.

You first start off by telling me in so many words that i should have just searched the info when all you found was general information on her yourself, so you then tell me to go find myself.

Well, I found it.  Betty Friedan, the great feminist “In 1969… was a founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, now known as Naral Pro-Choice America.”

Sigh.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/05/MNGQJH32DT1.DTL

Doh. Misread your post above move_zig.  My apologies!

Ace25 - Are you suggesting that the only moral way to remedy an ectopic pregnancy is to remove the fallopian tube in its entirety? so as not to directly harm the fetus?  Where did you get that quote?  This struck my curiosity.

Hairy Polemic - All law is based on morals.  Without the moral arguments, there would be no laws.  Who decides that it is “wrong” to kill, steal, or rape?  Those are all moral laws.

PPC,

Are YOU suggesting that the relatively rare incidence of ectopic pregnancy justifies the wholesale slaughter of inconvenient innocent young life?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

If a woman experiences an ectopic pregnancy it is impossible to have the baby. It will burst inside the fallopian tube.

Bat One - I am not suggesting that at all.  I am merely inquiring about where this idea came from.  I have never heard of this before.  My name explains my feelings.  I am only pro-choice as far as conception...meaning that I think the choice is made when you go to bed with someone, not months later.

PPC,

If my inference was in error, I apologize.  I trust you can see where it came from?

I’m pleased that we are agreed for the need to assume responsibility BEFORE, rather than after, the fact...erh… act.

There are few things in this world as beautiful as a woman who is pregnant… and wants to be.  And few things more tragic than one who does not.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One - No harm done.  I could have been more clear about my statement.  I like that last paragraph there.  It is true (from my current situation).  My wife is pregnant and looks more beautiful than I could ever have imagined.

---Did everyone else abandon this page?

This post is almost a month old now, so most of the commenters have moved on.  There may still be a few people subscribed to the comments, but for the most part they’re busy on newer threads.

If you’ve got things you want to talk about, get a reader blog and post away!  The link is up on the right sidebar.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Ace25 - Are you suggesting that the only moral way to remedy an ectopic pregnancy is to remove the fallopian tube in its entirety? so as not to directly harm the fetus?  Where did you get that quote?  This struck my curiosity.

by doing it this way, it is not a DIRECTLY attack on the human life. 

possibly these links will give you some food for thought

http://christianawarenessnetwork.com/tubalpregnancy.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c1.htm

PPC, Here is one more link for you that is more thorough:

http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57