That was pretty much my reaction. It is so much easier to dump all opponents into one conveniently monolithically evil group that gives us moral superiority. Basically, the same thing he finds so disgusting about pro lifers. Operation Rescue from Tyrants, instead of from baby murderers.


Now that I have given with one hand I do feel obliged to take with the other. There MUST be a difference between a human being and a finger nail clipping, and even the most ardent pro lifer does not oppose removing malignancies on the grounds it takes a human life, though the cells are human and alive. I cannot say where that difference lies, though legally it should probably be at the detection of brain waves (of course it is never that easy; brain waves have frequently been documented as early as 8 weeks, often before women know they are pregnant, but then we get to debate whether the standard should be "continuous" brain waves, a regular pattern, when THOSE begin, etc. etc.)

Since I cannot be sure, I prefer to err on the side of caution, so if I ever get pregnant I will have the baby. *nods* On the other hand, since I cannot be sure, I cannot prove someone elses answer wrong, and because of that and the fact they, not I, must face the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth, not to mention raise the child, I do not feel qualified to decide for them any more than they are for me. Where it gets dicey is when one partner is pro life and the other pro choice, particularly if the man is pro life, because legally there is not a darned thing he can do to stop the woman killing what he believes his child. Of course, if I do not have sex outside of a committed relationship with a woman willing, perhaps even eager, to bear my child, that is a non-issue. Funny how that works; almost like it was planned that way....

Most everyone agrees we are talking about a baby after the sixth or seventh month; at that point survival outside the womb is usually possible with regular feeding and changing, so it is a bit ridiculous (and dangerous) to deny that is a person simply because still in the uterus. Funny thing about Roe: It only legalized abortion within the first trimester; the concurrent Doe v. Bolton ruling legalized late term abortion when the mothers health is in jeopardy. Unfortunately, its inclusion of undefined "psychological health" opens the door to pert neer everything; post partum depression, worrying about your career, the kids college fund, whether your hubby still finds you attractive: ANYTHING is grounds for abortion. That is a long time complaint of mine, but I never saw it referenced by either side in the infamous late term ("partial birth" as pro lifers style it) federal abortion ban.

The first time I ever saw anyone else mention Doe legalizing abortion on demand at all times before delivery was today—in the plaintiffs 2000 affidavit declaring Doe v. Bolton a fraud, perpetrated without her knowledge and under significant duress. The "plaintiff" in Doe v. Bolton fled halfway across the country to escape her mother and lawyers attempt to force an abortion she never wanted. Pretty horrifying, really; so much for "a womans right to choose." The affidavit is linked below, and this time I made a point of finding sources I am reasonably sure are not some dishonest pro lifer making a specious claim; according to this CNN article: http://articles.cnn.com/2006-10-10/justice/scotus.abortion_1_jane-roe-abortion-case-norma-mccorvey?_s=PM:LAW

"Cano [AKA Mary Doe] stated in her appeal that she had never wanted an abortion in the first place, had been living in an abusive relationship, and had been forced by her attorney to fight the abortion option in court."