Link: http://www.family.org/cforum/research/papers/a0004309.html

Most abortion advocates are eager to argue, but there are some questions they don't want to be asked. Specifically, they don't want to be asked. Specifically, they do not want to defend abortion itself, because if they tried, they would lose.

Whenever abortion advocates engage in a public debate, they are targeting what I call the "mom and pop" in the audience the great majority of Americans who are undecided and largely uninformed on the issue. Abortion advocates will present "choice" as an expression of social justice and fairness, themes that win broad support. At the same time, they attempt to portray the pro-life position as narrow, intolerant and unfair.

Abortion advocates do this because their position on abortion is so radical, so absolute and so unchanging that it is indefensible and, once exposed, alienates the mainstream support they must have to continue their heinous practices.

Tragically, for the past two decades, pro-life activists have largely failed to exploit these weaknesses. They have allowed abortion advocates to frame public discussion of the issue, rendering their own arguments impotent.

Here are 16 questions you can use to recast the abortion debate in terms that reveal the abortion arguments as manipulative, unreasonable and callous. The goal of each question and background notes are provided to help guide debate over abortion. 1. Pro-abortionists say that outlawing abortion would restrict a woman's right to privacy. Is that right absolute? Does somebody's right to privacy exceed another's right to live? Goal: Show that abortion advocates believe no right is absolute, except abortion. Background: The law has always weighed one individual's rights against another's. Yes, a woman has a right to privacy, but the question is whether that right is so complete that it exceeds the unborn child's right to live. We accept the fact that laws against false advertising do, and should, restrict a dishonest businessman's right to free speech and that law against discrimination restrict the rights of the racist to free association. We don't allow someone to kill another and then claim that their religion requires human sacrifice.

Ironically, even though the work "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution, abortion advocates cite an absolute right to privacy as the basis for an absolute right to unrestricted abortion. 2. If what you say is true and the issue isn't really abortion but a woman's right to control her own body, why doesn't your agenda include drugs and prostitution? Aren't laws against those most restrictive to a woman's right to choose what she will and will not do with her own body as laws against abortion are? Goal: Show that the abortion advocate cares only about abortion. Background: Your opponent will try to avoid answering, but ask your question again and as often as it takes to get an answer. Whatever answer you get is a winner as long as you get one. 3. Why is it that the very people who say the governments should stay out of abortion are the same ones who want the government to pay for them? Goal: Show the hypocrisy of abortion advocates, and put them on the defensive. Background: Abortion advocates generally answer this question with another question to sidetrack the debate onto unrelated issues such as federal child care, school lunch programs, and even military spending. You should absolutely refuse to talk about these other issues until after they answer your question. 4. Abortion advocates say they are in the business to help women. Other than offering to kill their children for them, what are they doing? Goal: Debunk the myth that these "women's centers" care about something other than abortion. Background: There are more abortion alternative agencies in the U.S. than abortion mills, and they are staffed almost entirely by volunteers. They provide counseling on birth control, free room and board during and after pregnancy, free clothing, help with adoption, post-natal instruction, help in continuing education, etc.

The other side will talk about the counseling they give. What they mean is abortion counseling. Don't let them get away with that for an answer. Rephrase your question. "If a 15-year-old girl comes into your abortion mill with no money, no one to help her, no home to go to and no intention of having an abortion, what services does your facility provide for her?" Don't let them off the hook by allowing them to talk about what they would personally do. 5. Pro-abortionists say that the unborn child is part of the mother's body. If that is so, why does the child possess a completely different genetic code and often a different blood type? How do you explain the fact that it has its own immune system? Why is it male half the time? Goal: Humanize the unborn. Background: Abortion advocates will try to sidetrack. Be aggressive. Get an answer. Remember, every cell in the human body contains the genetic code of the entire body. Since the baby's code is always different from the mother's it is obvious that the unborn baby is a completely separate individual.

Abortion advocates sometimes say the fetus is not like other individuals because it is totally dependent on another to survive. But that's true even after it's born, and it's true for a great number of others, too e.g. the elderly, handicapped, senile, comatose, etc. 6. If we use the absence of brain waves to determine that a person's life had ended, why shouldn't we use the presence of brain waves to determine that someone's life has begun? Goal: Show that there is a reasonable and logical way to settle this issue, and that the pro-abortion people are unwilling to accept it. Background: Abortion advocates will usually try to avoid answering by saying that there is not a clear medical consensus about when characteristically "human" brain waves occur. They will say that some scientist believe "human" brain waves cannot be measured until the fifth or sixth month of gestation. This is a smokescreen.

Just ask the simple question: "Are you willing to use the same standards to determine when life begins as we now use to say when it ends? It's not really very complicated. The medical community has already given us the yardstick. All we need to know is whether you are willing to see it applied evenly." 7. We are now seeing the unborn being treated for disease, given blood transfusions and even operated on. When a doctor does one of these procedures, who is the patient? Goal: Humanize the unborn, and show the audience how confused the pro-abortion position is. 8. Abortion advocates try to justify their actions by saying that, while the unborn may be human, it's not a "person." Can you give a detailed description of the differences? Goal: Make the abortion advocate give a description that would also apply to people already born - the senile, the mentally handicapped, the comatose, etc. Background: The only differences between the two are semantic. Look up both words in the dictionary.

Pay close attention to your opponents' answer and listen for those description of an unborn child that also apply to other human beings already born. When you get one, use it. This is the time to be aggressive and hold their feet to the fire. Don't let them get away with some hazy, philosophical mumbo jumbo hoping you'll get so frustrated that you move on. Tell them you want a detailed and specific description of the differences. Some good aggressive statements are:

"You mean you can't tell the difference between the two, but you feel one should be protected, while the other one can be killed for any reason?"

"You mean that we should determine who is entitled to the protections of the law, and who isn't, on a description as poorly defined as that?"

"Are there other human beings who are also non-persons?" 9. Pro-abortionists base much of their argument on the concept of viability. Can you give me a description of what it means for someone to be viable? Goal: Again, the idea is link the unborn with people already born. Background: The issue of viability is a moot point. There is almost no description of it that can't also be applied to a person who is already born. 10. Why is it that abortion advocates say they want women to have all their options, but they fight so hard against laws requiring totally informed consent? Goal: Show that abortion advocates couldn't care less about women making informed decisions, just choosing abortion. Background: Be aggressive. Ask what the problem would be in telling the mother things about her unborn child - that it has hair, fingernails, a heartbeat; that is sucks its thumb; that it's a girl or boy.

Ask what the problem would be with requiring women to see a sonogram picture of her unborn child. Or a picture of what the unborn looks like at the stage of pregnancy she currently is. After all, it it's not really a baby, what could be the harm?

And don't let them get away with saying that if someone asks, they will show them. That's not the question. The question is "What's wrong with making it part of the informed consent requirements?" 11. What rights do you feel a father should have in an abortion decision? Goal: Make abortion advocates reveal how radical they are. Also show that this is not just a woman's issue. Background: Most people believe a father should have some rights in the decision. How can anyone, other than these radical abortionists, say that a father does not have equal rights in whether his child is killed or not, but then also say that if the mother decides to let it live - he has equal responsibility to pay for its upbringing? This is the point we need to hammer home. Don't let your opponent off the hook by talking about him being allowed "input." Having input is a long way from having the rights associated with decision-making. 12. If pro-abortionists are mainly concerned with the health and safety of women, why do they fight so hard against legislation requiring abortion providers to meet the same medical standard as legitimate outpatient surgery clinics? Goal: This is an educational opportunity. Many people assume that, because they call themselves "clinics," they meet the same standards as hospitals. Background: Concentrate your efforts on the following concept: Higher standards equals lower profits. 13. Let's look at a hypothetical situation. Two women become pregnant on the same day. Six months later woman A has a premature but healthy baby, and woman B is still pregnant. One week later she decides she doesn't want her baby. Why should woman B be allowed to kill hers and not woman A? Goal: Break down any false distinction between born and unborn. Background: The abortion advocate will usually say the difference is that one has been born, and the other one hasn't. Point out that being born simply refers to where the baby is located. Then ask your question again. "What are the distinctions between the two babies that allow one to be killed and the other not?" 14. Why don't we each look at the downside of our respective positions? Have you ever thought about the ramifications if you are wrong? Goal: This question is intended to shape the audience's opinion of the abortion advocate. Put mom and pop in each position and help them see what the ramifications are for being wrong. Background: If the abortion advocate does not admit being wrong, he or she loses credibility; people are suspicious of anyone who can't see even the possibility that they might be wrong about something.

You must show that, if nothing else, one is better off taking the risk of being pro-life and wrong, than pro-abortion and wrong. 15. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion for absolutely any reason, such as sex selection, or for career, or because she doesn't want to be tied down by a child? If not, when should she not be permitted to abort? Goal: Help listeners understand that abortion advocates care about nothing except absolute abortion-on-demand. Background: Abortion advocates will try every trick they know to avoid answering this question. Don't let them. If they say "yes" they know they will make a lot of people very uncomfortable. If they try to appear reasonable by saying "no," trap them by asking, "Why not, if abortion is morally acceptable?"

They will usually see this as a trap and try to avoid answering by saying that women don't have these kind of abortions - that they only have the ones they "need." Don't let them get away with that. Point out that, according to Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute, 92 percent of abortions are for convenience. Also point out that your question was whether women should be legally allowed to have abortions for any reason. 16. I am going to take the liberty of characterizing your position, and then I want you to tell me where I'm wrong. You want abortion to be legal right up to the moment of birth - in other words, through all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason whatsoever; for a minor girl of any age without parental consent, even without parent knowledge; and if she can't pay for it, you think the taxpayer out to. Is there anything inaccurate about that statement? Goal: This question is meant to show who the real fanatics are. Background: Again, the abortion advocate will try every way imaginable to avoid answering this question in the way you pose it. Remember, tenacity is your best strategy. Stay on them until they give an answer that makes it perfectly clear to the audience that your original characterization is accurate.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2001

Answers

Most abortion advocates are eager to argue, but there are some questions they don't want to be asked. Specifically, they don't want to be asked. Specifically, they do not want to defend abortion itself, because if they tried, they would lose.

Ha ha ha. Just keep telling yourself that.

Whenever abortion advocates engage in a public debate, they are targeting what I call the "mom and pop" in the audience the great majority of Americans who are undecided and largely uninformed on the issue. Abortion advocates will present "choice" as an expression of social justice and fairness, themes that win broad support. At the same time, they attempt to portray the pro-life position as narrow, intolerant and unfair.

Watsamatta? Truth hurt?

Abortion advocates do this because their position on abortion is so radical, so absolute and so unchanging that it is indefensible and, once exposed, alienates the mainstream support they must have to continue their heinous practices.

Funny how your side lies and lies and lies, and demonizes everyone who disagrees, and kills and murders and blocks sidewalks, and STILL can't get a hearing. Maybe you are just F***ING WRONG, ever think of that?

Tragically, for the past two decades, pro-life activists have largely failed to exploit these weaknesses. They have allowed abortion advocates to frame public discussion of the issue, rendering their own arguments impotent.

Your arguments are impotent because they are based on religon. Not science, not logic, not anything but Catholic religous doctrine. I'm not Catholic, so blow it out your ear. Somebody forced you to have an abortion, right? Dragged your hairy ass into a clinc and tied you down, right? Held a gun to your head, right? Give people the right to exercise their own free will, please!

Here are 16 questions you can use to recast the abortion debate in terms that reveal the abortion arguments as manipulative, unreasonable and callous. The goal of each question and background notes are provided to help guide debate over abortion. 1. Pro- abortionists say that outlawing abortion would restrict a woman's right to privacy. Is that right absolute? Does somebody's right to privacy exceed another's right to live? Goal: Show that abortion advocates believe no right is absolute, except abortion. Background: The law has always weighed one individual's rights against another's. Yes, a woman has a right to privacy, but the question is whether that right is so complete that it exceeds the unborn child's right to live.

And, of course, you ignore a whole pile of legitimate questions about when the fetus could survive on its own, at what point a fetus is a human as opposed to essentially an extension of the mother, and so forth. Can't answer it, ignore it. Motto of the anti's.

Look, Prolife, I do not accept a single fertile cell as being human or having any rights whatsoever. Nor do I accept it after the first division, nor the second, nor the extension into a hollow blastula.

Which, BTW, is a clear split from the anti position, since you want to ban RU-486, which ONLY works effectively on these earliest stages.

We accept the fact that laws against false advertising do, and should, restrict a dishonest businessman's right to free speech and that law against discrimination restrict the rights of the racist to free association. We don't allow someone to kill another and then claim that their religion requires human sacrifice.

Ironically, even though the work "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution, abortion advocates cite an absolute right to privacy as the basis for an absolute right to unrestricted abortion.

I suppose you don't believe in any right to privacy at all? It is a widely known FACT that many 'good little rich girls' take trips outside the US for abortions, to avoid the hassle at American clinics. Should we test every woman leaving the US for possible pregnancy? And test them again when they return? Hey, we are talking about possible killers here - gotta get it right. Why doesn't your side promote charging the woman with murder - in this case it takes two to be a killer.

2. If what you say is true and the issue isn't really abortion but a woman's right to control her own body, why doesn't your agenda include drugs and prostitution? Aren't laws against those most restrictive to a woman's right to choose what she will and will not do with her own body as laws against abortion are? Goal: Show that the abortion advocate cares only about abortion. Background: Your opponent will try to avoid answering, but ask your question again and as often as it takes to get an answer. Whatever answer you get is a winner as long as you get one.

Still, yes, I don't think the Federal government has any more business making drugs or prostitution illegal than it does abortion. As it happens, there is no Federal law against prostitution - check with Nevada if you don't believe it. And the SC doesn't agree with me on drugs, but they do on abortion, so you would seem to be on the losing end of the arrangement, here.

3. Why is it that the very people who say the governments should stay out of abortion are the same ones who want the government to pay for them?

Another lie. Many, perhaps most, abortion advocates do not support government paying for abortion. Most that are, btw, are paid for out of state funds, not federal.

Goal: Show the hypocrisy of abortion advocates, and put them on the defensive. Background: Abortion advocates generally answer this question with another question to sidetrack the debate onto unrelated issues such as federal child care, school lunch programs, and even military spending. You should absolutely refuse to talk about these other issues until after they answer your question. 4. Abortion advocates say they are in the business to help women. Other than offering to kill their children for them, what are they doing? Goal: Debunk the myth that these "women's centers" care about something other than abortion. Background: There are more abortion alternative agencies in the U.S. than abortion mills, and they are staffed almost entirely by volunteers. They provide counseling on birth control, free room and board during and after pregnancy, free clothing, help with adoption, post-natal instruction, help in continuing education, etc.

The other side will talk about the counseling they give. What they mean is abortion counseling. Don't let them get away with that for an answer. Rephrase your question. "If a 15-year-old girl comes into your abortion mill with no money, no one to help her, no home to go to and no intention of having an abortion, what services does your facility provide for her?"

The very first thing is to suggest adoption. Liar again.

Don't let them off the hook by allowing them to talk about what they would personally do. 5. Pro-abortionists say that the unborn child is part of the mother's body. If that is so, why does the child possess a completely different genetic code and often a different blood type? How do you explain the fact that it has its own immune system? Why is it male half the time?

Liar again. Do you read nothing but the anti garbage? Ever heard of 'know your enemy'? We say the fetus is unable to survive on its own, and therefore is to be CONSIDERED part of the woman. You try to make it sound like we're talking about a big toe or something.

Shit, I've seen medical books that describe an early stage fetus as "essentially a parasite". Rather we call it a parasite?

Goal: Humanize the unborn. Background: Abortion advocates will try to sidetrack. Be aggressive. Get an answer. Remember, every cell in the human body contains the genetic code of the entire body. Since the baby's code is always different from the mother's it is obvious that the unborn baby is a completely separate individual.

Abortion advocates sometimes say the fetus is not like other individuals because it is totally dependent on another to survive. But that's true even after it's born, and it's true for a great number of others, too e.g. the elderly, handicapped, senile, comatose, etc. 6. If we use the absence of brain waves to determine that a person's life had ended, why shouldn't we use the presence of brain waves to determine that someone's life has begun?

Cool. But your side has rejected this, since higher brain function cannot start before the middle of the fourth month, at minimum (no forebrain before then, ya know?), and that would make over 90% of the current crop of abortions perfectly fine.

Goal: Show that there is a reasonable and logical way to settle this issue, and that the pro-abortion people are unwilling to accept it. Background: Abortion advocates will usually try to avoid answering by saying that there is not a clear medical consensus about when characteristically "human" brain waves occur. They will say that some scientist believe "human" brain waves cannot be measured until the fifth or sixth month of gestation. This is a smokescreen.

Just ask the simple question: "Are you willing to use the same standards to determine when life begins as we now use to say when it ends? It's not really very complicated. The medical community has already given us the yardstick. All we need to know is whether you are willing to see it applied evenly." 7. We are now seeing the unborn being treated for disease, given blood transfusions and even operated on. When a doctor does one of these procedures, who is the patient?

And they won't touch one before the fourth month - which is still a loser for you.

Goal: Humanize the unborn, and show the audience how confused the pro-abortion position is. 8. Abortion advocates try to justify their actions by saying that, while the unborn may be human, it's not a "person." Can you give a detailed description of the differences?

Sure can. A person is capable of higher brain function. Tell you what, go to your state sanatorium and visit one of the unfortunates born without a forebrain. I've seen such. Incapable of thought or any sort of life beyond that of perhaps a lizard - large men lay around in diapers and goo goo and eat when they have food placed in their mouths. There is no person there.

Goal: Make the abortion advocate give a description that would also apply to people already born - the senile, the mentally handicapped, the comatose, etc. Background: The only differences between the two are semantic. Look up both words in the dictionary.

Pay close attention to your opponents' answer and listen for those description of an unborn child that also apply to other human beings already born. When you get one, use it. This is the time to be aggressive and hold their feet to the fire. Don't let them get away with some hazy, philosophical mumbo jumbo hoping you'll get so frustrated that you move on. Tell them you want a detailed and specific description of the differences. Some good aggressive statements are:

"You mean you can't tell the difference between the two, but you feel one should be protected, while the other one can be killed for any reason?"

"You mean that we should determine who is entitled to the protections of the law, and who isn't, on a description as poorly defined as that?"

Ever hear of the insanity defense?

"Are there other human beings who are also non-persons?" 9. Pro- abortionists base much of their argument on the concept of viability. Can you give me a description of what it means for someone to be viable?

Viable. Capable of independant life. Was that so hard?

Goal: Again, the idea is link the unborn with people already born. Background: The issue of viability is a moot point. There is almost no description of it that can't also be applied to a person who is already born. 10. Why is it that abortion advocates say they want women to have all their options, but they fight so hard against laws requiring totally informed consent? Goal: Show that abortion advocates couldn't care less about women making informed decisions, just choosing abortion. Background: Be aggressive. Ask what the problem would be in telling the mother things about her unborn child - that it has hair, fingernails, a heartbeat; that is sucks its thumb; that it's a girl or boy.

Ask what the problem would be with requiring women to see a sonogram picture of her unborn child. Or a picture of what the unborn looks like at the stage of pregnancy she currently is. After all, it it's not really a baby, what could be the harm?

And don't let them get away with saying that if someone asks, they will show them. That's not the question. The question is "What's wrong with making it part of the informed consent requirements?" 11. What rights do you feel a father should have in an abortion decision?

I am perfectly willing to allow the courts to decide that. How many rights do YOU think the father of a rape child should have? Or the father in an incest case?

Goal: Make abortion advocates reveal how radical they are. Also show that this is not just a woman's issue. Background: Most people believe a father should have some rights in the decision. How can anyone, other than these radical abortionists, say that a father does not have equal rights in whether his child is killed or not, but then also say that if the mother decides to let it live - he has equal responsibility to pay for its upbringing? This is the point we need to hammer home. Don't let your opponent off the hook by talking about him being allowed "input." Having input is a long way from having the rights associated with decision-making. 12. If pro-abortionists are mainly concerned with the health and safety of women, why do they fight so hard against legislation requiring abortion providers to meet the same medical standard as legitimate outpatient surgery clinics?

Another lie. If your side ever quits lying, we might have an actual debate. Abortion providers are not excused from anything.

No wonder many people refer to your group as "The CoatHanger Brigade".

Goal: This is an educational opportunity. Many people assume that, because they call themselves "clinics," they meet the same standards as hospitals. Background: Concentrate your efforts on the following concept: Higher standards equals lower profits. 13. Let's look at a hypothetical situation. Two women become pregnant on the same day. Six months later woman A has a premature but healthy baby, and woman B is still pregnant. One week later she decides she doesn't want her baby. Why should woman B be allowed to kill hers and not woman A?

ANSWER:She isn't. You screwed up your question. Abortions after the second trimester are not legal - and you put woman B into the third trimester.

Goal: Break down any false distinction between born and unborn. Background: The abortion advocate will usually say the difference is that one has been born, and the other one hasn't. Point out that being born simply refers to where the baby is located. Then ask your question again. "What are the distinctions between the two babies that allow one to be killed and the other not?" 14. Why don't we each look at the downside of our respective positions? Have you ever thought about the ramifications if you are wrong?

Why should I? I am asking you to let people make their own mistakes, and exercise their own free will, as allowed by both our laws and our God. You, however, are not willing to do that. I'd say I don't have a downside. Freedom only to do things YOU don't consider a mistake is no freedom at all. But, of course, to you, freedom is merely a silly side issue, that can be cut away until we have LESS freedom than the Ruskies under Stalin, as long as those freedoms are cut away for the RIGHT reasons.

Goal: This question is intended to shape the audience's opinion of the abortion advocate. Put mom and pop in each position and help them see what the ramifications are for being wrong. Background: If the abortion advocate does not admit being wrong, he or she loses credibility; people are suspicious of anyone who can't see even the possibility that they might be wrong about something.

You must show that, if nothing else, one is better off taking the risk of being pro-life and wrong, than pro-abortion and wrong. 15. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion for absolutely any reason, such as sex selection, or for career, or because she doesn't want to be tied down by a child?

Her business, not mine, and not yours. Period. Hey, does this make me brave or something?

If not, when should she not be permitted to abort? Goal: Help listeners understand that abortion advocates care about nothing except absolute abortion-on-demand. Background: Abortion advocates will try every trick they know to avoid answering this question. Don't let them. If they say "yes" they know they will make a lot of people very uncomfortable. If they try to appear reasonable by saying "no," trap them by asking, "Why not, if abortion is morally acceptable?"

They will usually see this as a trap and try to avoid answering by saying that women don't have these kind of abortions - that they only have the ones they "need." Don't let them get away with that. Point out that, according to Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute, 92 percent of abortions are for convenience. Also point out that your question was whether women should be legally allowed to have abortions for any reason.

See? You exposed yourself, and didn't even realise it. Are you GOD, that you can judge another persons reasons for ANY action? Where is your temple, oh lord?

16. I am going to take the liberty of characterizing your position, and then I want you to tell me where I'm wrong. You want abortion to be legal right up to the moment of birth - in other words, through all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason whatsoever; for a minor girl of any age without parental consent, even without parent knowledge; and if she can't pay for it, you think the taxpayer out to. Is there anything inaccurate about that statement?

Aside from the fact that it is an out and out lie? Not much else, I'd say.

Roe vs Wade allows the states to put restrictions on abortions after the first trimester, makes them illegal save for medical emergency after the second. I support Roe vs Wade, not some made up strawman mishmash from the mouth of a screaming antiabortion bigot.

Goal: This question is meant to show who the real fanatics are. Background: Again, the abortion advocate will try every way imaginable to avoid answering this question in the way you pose it. Remember, tenacity is your best strategy. Stay on them until they give an answer that makes it perfectly clear to the audience that your original characterization is accurate.

Well, I've known a bunch of people on both sides of the fence. And I gotta say, if you actually have the nerve to ask people that mishmash of strawman questions, you are the fanatic.

-- Anonymous, February 11, 2001

Yep, it's Doc.

I dunno, but it seems a culture that kills its unborn because they're either socially or economically unhandy isn't a culture you're gonna hear much from down the road. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we should just slaughter the little shits.

-- Anonymous, February 11, 2001

Carlos, are you suffering from Flint/Maria Syndrome? That is NOT "Doc". Have you ever seen him post to an "abortion" thread? A little deductive reasoning goes a long way. You disappoint me, friend. Truly.

Question that so-called "pro-lifers" (snicker) won't answer:

What gives you the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my body?

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

PatriciaS@LasVegas.com:

You are doing precisely what the article talked about and I'll bet you won't answer these questions either.

If its your body why can't you sell (or rent) it to other men for money? How can we have laws against prostitution if its your body and no one else can tell you what to do with it?

How can we have laws that prevent you from filling that body with drugs or from comitting suicide? Its your body isn't it?

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

I dunno, but it seems a culture that kills its unborn because they're either socially or economically unhandy isn't a culture you're gonna hear much from down the road. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we should just slaughter the little shits

------------------------------------------------------

Well, Carlos, infanticide is such a common practice in human history that I have made a case to a respected sociologist that it may be identifiable as a human instinct.

You see, every single human society that has reached or neared its limits on food resources has killed infants, most especially female infants. This is well recorded, and well known.

It applies to everyone, everywhere, as far as I was able to dig out - and I was on quite a hunting expedition to try to find an exception.

Instead, I found millions of examples, from Asia, where the practice is common today(all of Asia, from Korea to China and even Japan), to old Britain, to the Nordic countries, to the ancient Greek and Roman cultures (our school textbooks call it 'exposed' the infant instead of killed, an example of bowlderization in the extreme), to American Indian and even Samoan and Polynesian societies. If you can find an example of a society that actually filled up its space and did NOT practice infanticide, my hat is off to you, since I looked HARD, and I could not.

In the US, Canada and Australia, the practice is relatively rare, as these countries are not, as yet, crowded except in spots. And those crowded spots are exactly where one finds the greatest number of examples of infanticide.

(Hey, I don't always like the truth, I just tell it.)

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

I don't know who you are, No Way, but thank you from the bottom of my heart.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

If its your body why can't you sell (or rent) it to other men for money? How can we have laws against prostitution if its your body and no one else can tell you what to do with it?

How can we have laws that prevent you from filling that body with drugs or from comitting suicide? Its your body isn't it?

Yeah, it's my body to do with what I wish. Unfortunately, the reason why those thing are illegal is because you know-it-all-busy- body-I-know-what's-best-for-you moralising hypocrites have been very busy sticking your Goddamned nose where it doesn't belong, and passing laws in order to feel holy and righteous. Bite me.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

BTW, Prolife

Now that I have my rant out I'll tell you that you do make a good point. Patricia once stated that she believes drug dealers should be thrown in prison and have their property confiscated by the state. Seems that her body belongs to her for things she supports, but when it comes to other people doing things to their own body that she does not support suddenly those people do not own their body, the state does.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

WOW!

The Meathead ACTUALLY said that?!?!?!?

What a fucking hypocrite bitch...

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

Ah, Unk, I said the drug *kingpins* should be under the *present laws*. You know, the ones who'll kill anyone who gets in their way? I also said I thought drugs should be decriminalized/legalized. But they aren't **right now**. Big difference there. If you're going to re-quote, please put it in context.

Jeez, when did I become a freaking target? You people kill me.

And you -- "guess who" -- you can kiss *my* ass. How brave of you to hide behind a pseudonym. You're the hypocrite.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2001

So then you would support doctors being prosecuted should Roe V Wade be overturned? That would be the law, would it get your support?

BTW, I do not consider you a "freaking target", but merely a "target of opportunity" in the current debate, nothing personal.

;-)

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

I would have to "support it" if it were the law. I would vehemently disagree with it (as I do with certain laws now), most definitely protest it, but I probably wouldn't break it.

(But you can bet the house that if a rich kid got pregnant, it would be "taken care of", the law be damned; as has always happened.)

Sorry, just kind of tired of being a target of anything (and seemingly everything) these days. Nothing personal here either.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Patricia,

I don't consider you a target. 'Cept, maybe, for a smile. :)

Prolife,

I'M prolife myself, but the logic doesn't completely follow on some of your contentions (difficult to follow them, anyway, because you didn't format it very well).

Libertarians say that prostitution and drugs SHOULD be legal, precisely because no one SHOULD tell people what to do with their own bodies.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

(But you can bet the house that if a rich kid got pregnant, it would be "taken care of", the law be damned; as has always happened.)

Of course. Just as the children of the politically connected get away with a slap on the wrist for drug offenses that Joe Average sees a long prison term for. That is why I do NOT support ANY of the current laws in regards to 'illicit' drugs.

Sorry to pick on you, but I see that disconnect in so many pro-choice supporters that I tend to go for the throat on my critiques of that attitude.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Pat, you do take things extremely personnally, just an observation (I know, I should keep my opinions to myself!)

Prolife, a woman has the right to abort a fetus. She also has the right to safe medical procedures. She shouldn't die doing it.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Maria, do you know how to use the damn EMAIL ADDRESS I provide with every post?

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

And you -- "guess who" -- you can kiss *my* ass.

There is no fucking way that I'm getting anywhere NEAR your syphilis- infected keister!

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Maria,

Does a woman have a right to smoke pot? Does she have the right to rent her vagina for profit? Does she have the right to end her life if she decides to?

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Unk, yep and so do men (for certain parts (no pun intended) of your question).

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2001

Does a woman have a right to smoke pot? Does she have the right to rent her vagina for profit? Does she have the right to end her life if she decides to?

I dunna know, I think this used to be called addiction, not freedom. Nice and linear and all, I dunna know, just doesn't seem plum is all.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

A human fetus is a separate life form, separate and distinct from the body of the mother. By the time any doctor on the face of this planet can even tell a woman is pregnant, that fetus has a separate and distinct heartbeat, brain waves, and fingerprints. That is a life form, by any sane measure.

I have this on authority of two local OB/GYN M.D.'s who both graduated from Duke University, who have a combined 80 years of experience in the field. Both of whom are family friends whom I have known well for over 35 years. Will I identify these 'anonymous' doctors to posters on an internet forum? (as someone suggested a while back) Yeah right. Hold yer breath.

Maria, you do not have the "right" to abort a fetus. Any more than you have the "right" to point a gun at me and blow my head off. "Just because it's an inconvenience."

It is the biological function of the female of the species to carry children. Abortion has only become so normal as of late, due to selfish "ME-ism".

Those who so callously and coldly refer to fetuses as non-life, do so pretty much due to a clouded, retarded conscience. Or a simple lack of intelligence. One or the other. There is no third way.

The term "viable" and the argument over it is a pure joke. What was "viable" a century ago and what is "viable" now has changed by a factor of 200%. What will be "viable" 20 years from now could well be a 4-celled fertilized egg. The concept of viability is only limited by the state of current medical technology. Those who would play with the concept of "viability" in the abortion debate are getting into an area where they having no freaking idea what they're talking about. No fallible human can know. The concept changes with every advance in prenatal medical technology, where quantum leaps are being made every few years.

Most of the people who support abortion rights, have never had one, or seen one. Or seen visual depictions of what goes on, or the aftermath. Many women who have had abortions, indeed many nurses who have assisted in abortions, have had their consciences pricked by what they saw, and have realized what a horrible thing they were a party to.

My sister and I were both adopted, 3½ years apart. Both born illegitimate, to different couples. If abortion had been as prevalent in the late 50's/early 60's as it is now, neither she nor I would have ever been born, most likely.

Abortion is allowed by the law of the land. But that doesn't make it right. Not every law this country ever had was right. Slavery was once legal, by law. That didn't make it right. Women were once not allowed to vote, by law. That didn't make it right.

If abortion is ever made illegal, and made the capital crime that it should be; I'll sure sign up to be one of the people who throws the switch. "Doctors" who make their living killing hundreds and thousands of innocent unborn babies each and every year have a special place in Hell, to be sure. I'd have no problem sending them there.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Yo, DOC!? Pot smoking=addiction? Yes indeedy, one toke of that killer weed and your soul is lost! LOL...hey, check it out, I think this is right up your alley. Very informative stuff, enjoy!

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Unk, that is one of the funniest (albeit unintended hilarity) movies I have ever seen. Never ceases to amaze me that people really believed this stuff.

(Though why I put "believed" in the past tense is beyond me.....)

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Chicken I don't believe it is "separate" until birth. I believe the spirit enters the body at birth, not before. My belief not yours.

You wrote, "If abortion had been as prevalent in the late 50's/early 60's as it is now, neither she nor I would have ever been born, most likely." I also don't believe this. You would have taken form some other way. I believe in reincarnation and you decide how and when you come back and with whom. My belief, not yours.

If abortion becomes illegal, where does it end? Does that mean that I could be brought up on charges if I take drugs during my pregnancy? If I do anything with my body that affects the fetus, could I be jailed? After all as you point out, it could be analogous to me pointing a gun to your head. I don't believe in any of this. My body is my body, the fetus is a part of my body until birth.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Abortions have always been commonplace. It never made a difference whether they were legal or illegal as far as how many women got them. There was a girl in my 7th grade class who once told me "My mother would kill me if I got pregnant again. I've already had three abortions." She didn't die from any of her illegal abortions. My aunt died from hers. One of my best friends while working at Amoco told me that her mother told her that the only reason she was born was that she'd recently had an abortion and couldn't have another so soon. Abortions have not increased due to legalization. It was simply difficult to maintain statistics on illegal activities that went unreported. Since abortion has been legalized, and more reliable statistics have been available, each year has shown a decrease due to increased education in birth-control methods.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

"A human fetus is a separate life form, separate and distinct from the body of the mother."

Wrong. It is a potential life form, which is neither separate nor distinct from the body of the mother until after birth.

"By the time any doctor on the face of this planet can even tell a woman is pregnant, that fetus has a separate and distinct heartbeat, brain waves, and fingerprints. That is a life form, by any sane measure."

My cat has all of the above except fingerprints. Therefore, by your "sane" definition, she is not a life form. So I should be able to kill all cats, right?

"I have this on authority of two local OB/GYN M.D.'s who both graduated from Duke University, who have a combined 80 years of experience in the field."

I can produce more doctors with better credentials and more experience, and they will disagree with your doctors. Do you really not recognize what a lame argument you just put forth?

"Both of whom are family friends whom I have known well for over 35 years."

So? That automatically makes them right?

"Will I identify these 'anonymous' doctors to posters on an internet forum? (as someone suggested a while back) Yeah right. Hold yer breath."

I know two Emory University MDs who have over 623 combined years of experience in the field and who I have personally known for over 75 years each, and they told me that all feti are born with suits, briefcases and jobs, as well as vestigial PhDs dangling from the bases of their spines. I see no reason whatsoever to doubt they say. Neither should you. After all, I wouldn't DARE betray their confidence. That alone PROVES that they're right.

"Maria, you do not have the "right" to abort a fetus."

You are wrong. She does. You just don't like it.

"Any more than you have the "right" to point a gun at me and blow my head off."

Not true. In my state, I have the right to point a gun at you and blow your head off if you are trying to break into my house. And if Maria wanted to abort a fetus of her own, then she could do that, too. I could terminate your life if you broke into my house. Maria could terminate a potential life, under certain circumstances.

"Just because it's an inconvenience."

What's it to you why she might do it? Why should someone justify their reasons to you?

"It is the biological function of the female of the species to carry children."

It is not, however, the mandated destiny of all females to carry children, let alone give birth to them. Simply because women CAN carry children does not mean that they HAVE to carry children. I CAN point a gun at your head and shoot you, but that does not mean that I SHOULD do so. Unless you were breaking into my house. Then I definitely SHOULD shoot you.

"Abortion has only become so normal as of late, due to selfish "ME- ism".

You need to do some research into the history of abortion. It has been around a lot longer than you think, and has been more popular than you think, too. In addition, you need to have a look at the history of infanticide and then ask yourself -- is it preferable to abort a fetus or to outright kill an infant or toddler? If you think abortion is the more objectionable of the two, then get professional psychatric help. Fast.

"Those who so callously and coldly refer to fetuses as non-life, do so pretty much due to a clouded, retarded conscience."

You have neither evidence nor proof of this. You simply don't agree with the assessment.

"Or a simple lack of intelligence."

Given the poor structure of your argument, you're obviously pointing the finger in the wrong direction. The intelligence and raw reasoning capacity on the pro-life side is practically nil.

"One or the other. There is no third way."

You are wrong. You don't AGREE with the third way, so you dispute its very existence. You argue like a Scientologist.

"The term "viable" and the argument over it is a pure joke."

No, it is not. It is a scientifically-based argument, and as such, is eminently applicable to this discussion. I suspect that you wish to dismiss the term because you have no argument that is an adequate counter to it.

"What was "viable" a century ago and what is "viable" now has changed by a factor of 200%."

Your anonymous Duke docs tell you that? Please cite a source for us.

"What will be "viable" 20 years from now could well be a 4-celled fertilized egg."

Yes. Which, if the "abort until viable" legal argument holds up, would be a victory for the pro-life side. If viability occurs at progressively earlier points during gestation, then fewer and fewer feti would meet the definition of "pre-viable" and therefore be legally abortable.

Are you really so benighted that you don't recognize the UTILITY of the viability argument for your side? Better get with the scientists.

"The concept of viability is only limited by the state of current medical technology."

Yup. And as science marches on, a progressively greater percentage of feti will be "viable." You're really missing the point.

"Those who would play with the concept of "viability" in the abortion debate are getting into an area where they having no freaking idea what they're talking about."

Well, it is obvious that YOU don't have any idea of what you're talking about.

"No fallible human can know."

That's why we use science; to get as closely as we can to that knowledge.

No fallible human can "know" whether a defendant is guilty of a given crime, but we convict and punish people all the time. If your argument against abortion is going to be the "fallible humanity" one, then you'd better be prepared to deal with some other "unknowable" items in human society.

"The concept changes with every advance in prenatal medical technology, where quantum leaps are being made every few years."

That's right. See above. Gosh, you're not very good at this, are you?

"Most of the people who support abortion rights, have never had one, or seen one."

Maybe, maybe not. You don't really know. You've got nothing evidentiary to prove your statement.

"Or seen visual depictions of what goes on, or the aftermath."

Again, no evidence.

"Many women who have had abortions, indeed many nurses who have assisted in abortions, have had their consciences pricked by what they saw, and have realized what a horrible thing they were a party to."

And many others have not. Now what?

"My sister and I were both adopted, 3½ years apart. Both born illegitimate, to different couples. If abortion had been as prevalent in the late 50's/early 60's as it is now, neither she nor I would have ever been born, most likely."

Good for both of you. However, personalizing the debate is irrelevant. Your mere existence is not an argument for enforced pregnancy.

"Abortion is allowed by the law of the land. But that doesn't make it right."

If you do not feel that it is right for you, then do not have one. But do not demand that others act as you would. Allow them the freedom to decide for themselves. If you would trust a woman with an infant, but not with a decision, then you are a sick, sick individual.

"Not every law this country ever had was right. Slavery was once legal, by law. That didn't make it right. Women were once not allowed to vote, by law. That didn't make it right.

And abortion and contraception were once illegal. That didn't make those laws right.

In any event, you have posited an irrelevant and misleading argument. The existence of unjust laws in our nation's past does not demonstrate that laws allowing abortion are likewise unjust. You attempt to present a connection that does not logically exist.

"If abortion is ever made illegal, and made the capital crime that it should be;"

Your opinion.

"I'll sure sign up to be one of the people who throws the switch."

Can't have people aborting feti, but electrocuting doctors is A-OK with you, huh? You're an appalling human being.

"Doctors"

They are definitely doctors. They have M.D.s. Sorry that's so painful for you.

"who make their living killing hundreds and thousands of innocent unborn babies"

Feti. Not unborn babies. BTW, would you off the women, too? Just want to make sure we're straight with who's on your imaginary god's hit list.

"each and every year have a special place in Hell, to be sure."

But your hell is a made-up imaginary place. No one actually goes there, because it doesn't exist. What's your problem?

"I'd have no problem sending them there."

Well, of course you wouldn't. It would be easier to kill your opponents than to actually THINK about what they are saying.

Don't abort feti. Kill doctors instead. That sum up your argument?

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2001

Since the murdering doctor idea has been brought up, could someone explain to me why pro-lifers do not want to bring the woman up on charges if she has an abortion?

I've seen a lot of stuff about doctors being charged with murder, and a lot more about women being charged in the case of taking drugs or liquor, but nothing about women being charged with murder or accomplice to murder if they seek an abortion, assuming abortions are no longer legal.

Is this one of those things we don't talk about until its a done deal? Or what?

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2001

I've got a question, too. If pro-lifers claim that life begins at conception, then how come pro-lifers don't have funerals for miscarried fetuses? Just asking.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2001