Today on Blogcritics
Home » Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Partial Birth Abortion

Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Partial Birth Abortion

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The Supreme Court upheld a nationwide ban on partial birth abortions today in a 5-4 vote. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush received immediate challenges. The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

The argument that crushing a baby's skull is a "constitutional right" is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard, and I am elated the Supreme Court rejected that notion. Hopefully this will be only the first step in a series of laws which will eventually do away with the abortion on demand society we currently live in.

Planned Parenthood was obviously troubled by the decision with spokesperson Eve Gartner stating, "This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety. … This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with Planned Parenthood, stating in her dissenting opinion, "Today's decision is alarming… [the ruling] refuses to take … seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

Prior to this ruling, six Federal courts have said the law is an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. I have read the Constitution many times, I have never seen any clause which even remotely implies the right to take an innocent life. So in order to understand why these Federal courts ruled as such, it is necessary to take a look at the Supreme Court case which invented the right.

Abortion advocates claim their right to kill the unborn is protected by the Constitution, and as we all know, in Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court did indeed say that:

State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a “compelling” point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term.

There you have it. Apparently it is the Fourteenth Amendment which gives women this "right". So let's take a look at the 14th and see if we can find the "right" they refer to:

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It would appear to me that any state which allows abortions to occur would be depriving a person of life, and therefore would be violating the Fourteenth Amendment. But I am not a Constitutional lawyer, so what do I know?

Let's see what those wiser than me had to say. Justice Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion in Roe summed it up pretty good:

Even today, when society’s views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the “right” to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe.

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 and has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.

But that was a dissenting opinion, so let's take a look at the concurring side. Chief Justice Burger’s concurring opinion says:

I do not read the Court’s holdings today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting Justices; the dissenting views discount the reality that the vast majority of physicians observe the standards of their profession, and act only on the basis of carefully deliberated medical judgments relating to life and health. Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand.

As you can see from Chief Justice Burger’s concurring opinion, when he ruled in favor of Roe, he did so under the presumption the most doctors are ethical, and would only perform these procedures if there were a medically viable reason for it. As organizations like Planned Parenthood and doctors like George Tiller have shown us, this is not the case!

With more than one million abortions performed in this country annually, it can no longer be considered a medical procedure, it now must be considered an epidemic.

Powered by

About Charles Signorile

  • Franco

    Excellent piece, well thought out and well worded. It’s nice to see a stand being taken for the unborn when convenience silences a million a year.

  • Nelson

    “The argument that crushing a babies skull is a ‘constitutional right’ is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard”

    Not knowing the difference between plural and possessive is the most outrageous thing I have ever seen.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Not knowing the difference between plural and possessive is the most outrageous thing I have ever seen.

    Obviously, you lead a sheltered existence.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I personally don’t think it’s any of my business to decide what someone else does with their body…having said that…I really don’t want to have to pay for a lot of unwanted children…I have two of my own…and they ain’t cheap!

    But you two guys…Charles and Franco…you keep trying to make those choices…for women…maybe fork up some duckets too…you want ‘em…you can have ‘em.

    …and another thing

    WTF is up with the grammar police around here all of a sudden? Is this place being overrun by a bunch of crazy english majors all of a sudden?

  • Sisyphus

    “Is this place being overrun by a bunch of crazy english majors all of a sudden?”

    “English” should be capitalized.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Bwahahahahahahha!

    Andy, my friend, you walked into that one big time!

    Don’t you know that “crazy English majors” is a tautology?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Clavos – after I looked it up…yeah…I guess it is!

    Look..spelling…and grammar…and punctuation…and anything else that goes along with rite’n ain’t my thing! but I’m workin’ on it!

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I’m all for abortions – frequent and low priced if possible. But I do think you have to draw the line somewhere and the obvious place has to be at the point where if you popped the baby out it could live without any artificial life support.

    Dave

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I agree with you Dave…but reading the article and the 1st comment…I get the impression that these two don’t believe the court went far enough.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    There are certainly plenty of issues one could raise with the article – including the excessive use of italics which caused me not to want to actually read it.

    For example:

    With more than 1 million abortions performed in this country annually, it can no longer be considered a medical procedure, it now must be considered an epidemic.

    Does that mean we have an epidemic of bunions or minor melanomas or crooked teeth, all of which are dealt with through millions of medical procedures annually?

    Think your statements through. The epidemic is the unwanted pregnancies, not the abortions. The abortions are the treatment for the epidemic. Good thing we HAVE a treatment for this one, unlike AIDS or Ebola.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Someone forgot to properly edit this bit from the article. I’ll fix it:

    Hopefully this will be only the first step in a series of laws which will eventually do away with the abortion on demand society we currently live in.

    There we go. That’s fixed.

    Dave

  • http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/supreme-court-14047.htm MyBodyMyChoice

    Dave & all,
    The thing is–this ruling doesn’t pertain only to viable fetuses. Now, by federal law, if I am a woman who is 13 weeks pregnant and my life is endangered by the pregnancy, and my doctor believes that a dilation and extraction abortion is necessary, it’s now illegal.

    It’s disturbing to see people arguing the propaganda of “Partial Birth Abortion,” when that’s not what the law actually states and that’s not the reality. That language is propaganda meant to mobilize people based on emotional appeals that are not based in fact.

    Justice Ginsburg said it best:

    “Today’s decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health.”

    “Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.”

  • http://www.constitutionallyright.com Charles

    Unfortunately Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion was more of a politcal statement than a legal statement. The media has been echoing her for the last 24 hours claiming a womans health is now at risk which is a complete falacy. For those of you who have no idea what this lawsuit was actually about, [Sorry but I have had to remove this link because the site says “Please resubmit your search
    Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information” Comments Editor]. It clearly says:

    “This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.”

  • Arch Conservative

    It’s disgusting how those who perpertrate infanticide with unrestrained glee seek to frame every single abortion as a matter of choosing between the woman’s life and health and the child’s life.

    Most abortions are not in fact decisions that weigh the mother’s life against the baby. Most abortions are rather the mother deciding that she would rather murder her baby because she’s “not ready” to have kids or “it’s not the right time.” Well guess what………life throws curveballs at all of us and a lot fo the time we’re wholly unprepared to deal with them. However, a decent person makes the right decision not the easy one. having and abortion is, in most cases, the epitome of selfishness.

    Oh I’m tired of this whole “if you’re pro-life you must help support all the babies argument.” That is complete bullshit. I bet all you asshats spouting that argument believe it would be immoral to murder your next door neighbor right? Does that belief mean you should be responsible for his financial and social welfare? Being pro-life does not obligate anyone to support babies. it simple means that you oppose the unecessary murdering of babies. Simple as that.

    You can’t even begin to imagine the smile that crossed my face when I heard the news yesterday. Although I am pro-life I often wish that those in charge at naral, NOW, planned parenthood and all of the other vile organizations that claim to care about all women but in reality are just tools for the far left, had been aborted. How’s that for irony? Fuck you, I hate you all, and I hope you rot in hell for eternity for the blood that is on your hands.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy marsh

    Depends on the neighbor there arch!

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    if I am a woman who is 13 weeks pregnant and my life is endangered by the pregnancy, and my doctor believes that a dilation and extraction abortion is necessary, it’s now illegal.

    That’s just as much propaganda as the positions you see coming from the pro-life side on this issue. At 13 weeks there are multiple options for abortion and a dilation and extraction abortion would never be the only option. It’s more expensive, but they can do an orthroscopic equivalent of a dilation and extraction without any actual dilation required and achieve the same results.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    [Dead link deleted]

    Having now reread and refreshed myself on the bill, several things are very clear.

    First, the bill unequivocally protects the right of physicians to perform the procedure when the life of the woman is in danger from the fetus or other causes. Hell, it even repeats it TWICE. See sections a and d(1).

    Second, the definition of partial birth abortion is such that in the 13 week example given above dilation and extraction would be perfectly legal because it would not count as a partial birth abortion because the fetus would be non-viable and would die on its own. See section b(1).

    In short, the comment in #12 is clearly repeating disinformation about the PBA law which is just not true. For that matter, Ginsburg’s objection appears to also be erroneous based on the actual text of the law, because the law in no way blurs the line between viability and non-viability, as viability is the absolute standard it sets for whether or not the abortion is legal.

    Dave

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Dave, those links still don’t work after a short period of time so I have to delete it again. You need to link to the actual article, not the search results, which expire…

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Christopher, I was pretty sure I linked to the text, not the search page, but here’s a link to the bill from a different source which avoids the LoC’s annoying search script.

    Dave

  • http://www.constitutionallyright.com Charles

    Here is another link to the bill

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Thanks, guys.

  • steve

    chipping away at the silent tragedy of abortion…I love it!

  • zingzing

    silent?

    abortion?

    wait… abortion? what’s that? I’VE NEVER HEARD OF IT!

    gimme a break, steve. i mostly agree with the idea of banning partial birth abortion (if that is what this does), but, “the silent tragedy of abortion?” that is ridiculous. i laugh. i think i peed a bit.

  • steve

    the media and the liberals suffered a major loss…which I am excited about. It IS a silent tragedy not talked about nearly enough. Pick up some depends if it makes you leak! =P

  • zingzing

    i dunno. i’m a liberal and i’m not too upset. there are better ways to abort. and how exactly does the media lose out because of this?

  • Arch Conservative

    “i dunno. i’m a liberal and i’m not too upset. there are better ways to abort. and how exactly does the media lose out because of this?”

    The media loses out because tey are made up of leftists and this happens to be one of thier causes.

  • zingzing

    do you see the media crying over it? what’s to cry over? they have a big story, which will cause some controversy and debate and there will be many, many people who have a job for another day because this happened. the media’s “cause” is controversy, because that sells papers.

    so, no, the media did not lose. they would have been just as happy to see it go the other way, but a story is a story. maybe certain members of the media were upset, but certain members of almost every group in america don’t like this ruling.

    still, it’s not that big a thing. like i said, there are better ways to have an abortion, and if there isn’t any medical reason why this practice should be legal, then… it SHOULD be illegal.

    just like i’m a fan of painkillers, i don’t want heroin being legal. you see?

  • Arch Conservative

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with this ruling whatsoever and anyone who wants to trot the old “they’re trying to dictate women’s health/infringe upon women’s rights” argument is either:

    A: A diehard leftist [Edited].

    B: Currently making a killing off of killing innocent babies.

    Both camps are the lowest of the low.

  • MBD

    I just can’t imagine why anyone would be upset over having their brain sucked out and their skull crushed as they are about to leave a warm comfortable existence and have to breathe our polluted air for the first time.

    I’ll bet that if given the CHOICE most of us would have opted for the brain and skull job.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    MBD, fetuses can’t make choices. Hell, 3 year olds can’t make choices. Or are you comparing your decision making ability with that of an infant – hey, you may have a point there.

    just like i’m a fan of painkillers, i don’t want heroin being legal. you see?

    I’m not a fan of painkillers at all, but I do think heroin should be legal. And I believe that for much the same reasons I support abortion – legalizing drugs and getting rid of unwanted potential children benefits society as a whole enormously and the mothers and drug addicts involved are willing participants in sacrificing for the good of all of us.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    oh bah. you know what point i was trying to make.

    actually, even if your pro-heroin argument is logical, i still don’t want it to be legal, just because i doubt my own willpower to stay away from it.

  • Arch Conservative

    “legalizing drugs and getting rid of unwanted potential children benefits society as a whole enormously”

    I thought you had some libertarian leanings Dave. You sure don’t exhibit them with that little bit of verbal diarhea.

    So the benfits to society outweigh an individual’s right to exist? Well hell Dave why don’t we just start killing all the mentally handicapped people who need society’s resources, let’s kill anyone without a job or who makes less than 40K a year.

    Let’s have a big ole’ rootin tootin Dave Nalle Texas style killfest and murder anyone who doesn’t meet the Nalle quota of societal contribution.

  • MBD

    I just can’t imagine why Dave would be upset over having his brain sucked out and his skull crushed as he was about to leave a warm comfortable existence and have to breathe our polluted air for the first time.

    I’ll bet that if given the CHOICE Dave would have opted for the brain and skull job.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I thought you had some libertarian leanings Dave. You sure don’t exhibit them with that little bit of verbal diarhea.

    Come again? I just endorsed peoples right to be free to choose to have a baby or not and to take drugs or not without government interference. What could be more Libertarian than that? The reason the LP has no official stand on abortion is that the party is split about 50-50 pro and anti. The question is how much you value human life and when you think it begins. I think life begins when you can live on your own, which is about half-way through pregnancy or a bit more. If you can’t breathe on your own, you’re not alive as far as I’m concerned, be you fetusboy or Terry Schiavo.

    So the benfits to society outweigh an individual’s right to exist?

    No, but favoring the rights of individuals generally benefits society. Non-viable fetuses just aren’t individuals. They can’t be. They can only live in their mother’s wombs, therefore they don’t HAVE individual existence.

    Well hell Dave why don’t we just start killing all the mentally handicapped people who need society’s resources, let’s kill anyone without a job or who makes less than 40K a year.

    Interesting proposition, but we need those people and they ARE functioning individuals at some level, at least. I don’t advocate killing innocent animals either.

    Let’s have a big ole’ rootin tootin Dave Nalle Texas style killfest and murder anyone who doesn’t meet the Nalle quota of societal contribution.

    Tempting, but as I said before, you’ve got my criteria backwards. It’s the individual that matters, and taking care of the individual will lead to benefits for society.

    Dave

  • MBD

    “It’s the individual that matters, and taking care of the individual will lead to benefits for society.”

    And individuals come from fetuses.

    Without fetuses there would be no individuals.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

  • Arch Conservative

    “I just endorsed peoples right to be free to choose to have a baby or not and to take drugs or not without government interference. What could be more Libertarian than that?”

    No… you didn’t. Your exact words were…

    “And I believe that for much the same reasons I support abortion – legalizing drugs and getting rid of unwanted potential children benefits society as a whole enormously”

    You didn’t endorse the use of drugs or abortion because you believe in personal freedom and liberty… you said you endorsed them because they would benefit society. Your words Dave.

    That kind of collectivist thought is more reminiscent of Karl Marx than American libertarians Nalle.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Remember the days when the term “arch conservative” referred to people like Barry Goldwater, who was pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, called the religious right “a bunch of kooks,” and called Iran-Contra “the goddamn stupidest foreign policy blunder this country’s ever made”?

    Ahh, days of yore….

  • Servant

    While I would not take it to the extremes that certain other have used in verbalizing their positions, I do not support abortions or euthanasia. When the federal government starts to legalize society as a whole, it sets a dangerous precedent for the future. Especially democratic republics, were the masses tend to be stupid. Not that I would want to kill them off or anything…

  • MBD

    “Remember the days when the term “arch conservative” referred to people like Barry Goldwater.”

    That is passé.

    Today the arch-conservative refers to former German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now known as Pope Benedict XVI.

    Catch up.

  • Arch Conservative

    Yes Michael and remember the days when Democrats were like JFK..they had traditional American values, believed America was a good place worth living in and fighting for, didn’t blame America for the world’s problems, didn’t cater to illegal aliens, didn’t sympathize with terrorists, didn’t play racial politics at the drop of a hat…….

    ah the days of yore!

  • MBD

    And remember the days when Republicans were like Dwight Eisenhower… they had traditional American values, believed America was a good place worth living in and fighting for but didn’t try to control the rest of the world, and didn’t cater to the military-industrial complex.

  • Zedd

    I find it funny that all these men are standing up for the unborn and won’t spend enough time with their own kids. Don’t bother to say you do. Lets ask your wives.

  • MBD

    I find it funny that strangers know what others do for their kids. Don’t bother to say you know because you don’t.

  • Arch Conservative

    “I find it funny that all these men are standing up for the unborn and won’t spend enough time with their own kids. Don’t bother to say you do. Lets ask your wives.”

    As MBD said Zedd….

    How the fuck would you know how much time the pro life posters on here spend with their kids?

  • Zedd

    MBD

    I say, lets ask your wives for those of you who have one.

    The point is that men don’t typically do the raising of children in society. I was hoping that you would be able to ascertain the larger meaning of my post instead of being so literal. I expect it from Arch, he has demonstrated his intellectual parameters. I ignore most of the time. But YOU? I must have hit a sore spot.

    You are right, I don’t know anyone on these boards. I know that men don’t raise the children in society (not talking about isolated cases).

    Not you specifically ……. but if you are so pro life how about being pro raising also. From day one, don’t relinquish any activities to the mom. Know that everything is your job. Wipe the buggers, give the lunch money, wipe boo boos, tell them about puberty, go to the school and check up on them. Know who all of their friends are, bake cookies and cup cakes with them, do soccer or t-ball, know all of those parents, know all of the kids on the street and their parents, teach them how to cook, teach them about dating in detail, talk to them about french kissing and sex, sign all of the permission slips, know what field trips they are going on and what they need to take, know who they have a crush on, know who picks on them at school, buy valentines cards, check their homework, cook meals for them, know the way they like their peanut butter sandwich, know where they hide their dirty clothes, wash their laundry, and so on. Know all of this on your own without your wife getting you caught up. You start and take responsibility fully. Women do this without even thinking. This is not even the hard part.

    If you want women to have all of the babies that they are impregnated with, be prepared to be on top of things when the child gets here. Dont be a bump on a log goofing around and getting in the way dozing in and out of parenthood and assuming that everything is being taken care of… by the one who cooked this person in her body and had the child squeezed out of her in the most painful way imaginable.

  • Zedd

    Arch

    From the way that you conduct yourself on these boards, one can only hope that you don’t spend that much time with kids.

  • MBD

    Zedd, i don’t care if a woman crawls on broken glass to take care of her kids, that doesn’t give her the right to kill any she doesn’t want.

    And I repeat:

    I find it funny that you as a stranger know what others do for their kids. Don’t bother to say you know because you don’t.

    In any case, the issue here is killing, not caring.

  • Arch Conservative

    I expect it from Arch, he has demonstrated his intellectual parameters.”

    And you have demonstrated your intellectual limits as well. Your MO is blaming everything on racism in America.

  • Zedd

    MBD

    I didn’t say I know what you do. Are you alright?

    I said I KNOW that women are the ones who raise children in society. If you argue that point, you are simply displaying your desire to just dive into the ridiculous in a rather sophomoric way. When my daughter who is now in high schools starts to argue with silly useless points, I tell her not to be a 7th grader because at that age they get really smart alecky because they are discovering a little logic and they make really stupid embarrassing points when its just not necessary. MBD, don’t be a 7th grader.

    Also I don’t see a fetus as a human being. So to me, its not killing a human being. and YES its quite clear that you DON’T care if a woman has to walk on broken glass. That IS the problem. Perhaps this is not your decision or discussion to have. It doesn’t affect YOU.

    Why don’t you go to Darfur and concern yourself with living and breathing babies that are suffering and dying. Go to the streets of Kenya and Manila and rescue those children. Why don’t you walk on broken glass for THE CHILDREN.

  • MBD

    “I don’t see a fetus as a human being. So to me, its not killing a human being.”

    You don’t see well.

    If your argument is that the fetus is not viable, i.e., not having the ability to grow, expand and develop if left without assistance, then that means that the life of any child under an age where it can support itself can be terminated.

    An unborn child may not be a fully developed human being but in a ‘Partial Birth Abortion’ the fetus being aborted has a beating heart and the other organs human beings have. All it doesn’t have that other children have is a chance to live.

    Woman want the ‘choice’ to kill, all the unborn want is the ‘chance’ to live.

    The difference is killing versus living.

    Other bitches in the animal world that kill their young are African hunting dogs where a dominant female tries to kill the pups of another female, and kangaroos that can have more than one young at different stages of development. If the mother cannot suckle them she removes one from the pouch and its life is aborted.

    Any female who kills her young is no different than a bitch in the wild.

  • J.J. Hunsecker

    “Other bitches in the animal world that kill their young are African hunting dogs where a dominant female tries to kill the pups of another female, and kangaroos that can have more than one young at different stages of development. If the mother cannot suckle them she removes one from the pouch and its life is aborted.”

    Then it sounds like abortion is part of the natural order of the universe.

  • Lumpy

    MBD. The unborn don’t want anything. They have no knowledge or experience on which to base wanting or not wanting anything. [Edited]

  • MBD

    “it sounds like abortion is part of the natural order of the universe”

    It is?

    How so?

    When the percent occurrence is infinitesimal it is hardly part of the natural order.

    How far did you go in school?

  • MBD

    “The unborn don’t want anything. They have no knowledge or experience on which to base wanting or not wanting anything”

    Are you speaking from medical knowledge or ignorance?

    Research programs beginning at 12 weeks of gestation, sought to maximize fetal potential. Test results show definite physical, mental, and emotional advantages to those in stimulated groups. These babies showed significantly greater height and head circumference, fine and gross motor performance, and speech and language acquisition. They also smiled and laughed in the first week after birth–something rarely seen in babies.

    Have you heard of learning by osmosis?

    Obviously not.

    So don’t waste any more of my time.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Learning my osmosis? LOL. You mean like putting your school books under your pillow and magically waking up knowing everything they contain?

    No wonder you have these goofy beliefs.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    When the percent occurrence is infinitesimal it is hardly part of the natural order.

    By definition, if it occurs in nature AT ALL, it’s part of the natural order. The degree to which it occurs is irrelevant

  • MBD

    Dave, you are the one with goofy beliefs.

    That has been demonstrated time and time again.

  • MBD

    Clavos, you are more goofy than your mentor.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Thank you, MBD.

  • A Concerned Citizen

    Zedd, #45
    Women do this without even thinking

    Gee, does that mean women are biologically hard-wired that way? Does that mean it’s natural for them to be raising kids? And having kids? And taking care of kids? Hmmmm. Maybe men are biologically inclined to act a certain way too. Maybe millions of years spent in the wild predisposed our genders to function in certain, different roles.

    But you know, if people are so willing to kill their own babies, maybe we never really got out of the wild.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Women do this without even thinking

    …Naw…I can’t…too easy…nah…

  • A Concerned Citizen

    Haha I took it, Clavos

  • MBD

    #57 “By definition, if it occurs in nature AT ALL, it’s part of the natural order. The degree to which it occurs is irrelevant”

    Can you spell D-E-V-I-A-N-T?

    Life begins when there is a heartbeat. That is a sure sign of life and it is clear evidence of life without having to breathe air.

    Saying that life doesn’t begin until an infant breathes air assumes that breathing air is a necessary sign of life. As long as a baby in inside its mother it doesn’t need to breathe air. Just because a baby gets its oxygen from its mother doesn’t mean it isn’t alive,

    Face it.

    Those who kill their young are deviants. Always have been, always will be.

    Q.E.D.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Deviants are part of nature too, MBD.

    Geniuses are deviants.

    Imbeciles are deviants.

    Conjoined twins are deviants.

    7′ 6″ roundball players are deviants.

    All part of nature, and none evil.

  • MBD

    But killers are deviants. Especially killers of the most innocent.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    But killers are deviants.

    Then ALL of nature is deviant. Virtually ALL of nature, including man, kills regularly and repeatedly; for food, for territory, for defense, even for play, as cats do.

    My cats kill birds frequently when I let them out into the yard. They’re not deviants; it’s in their genes; that’s one of the things cats DO.

  • MBD

    The subject here is abortion — so let’s focus on baby killers.

    I see you get confused easily.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    The subject here is abortion — so let’s focus on baby killers.

    Well, if you want to change the subject, then fine.

    Let’s talk about the dismayingly frequent cases of teenagers giving birth to unwanted infants and throwing them in dumpsters or leaving them in the girls room at the prom, or leaving them to be raised by grandparents, or neglecting them or letting them be killed by a frustrated and abusive unmarried father. Need I go on?

    You prefer the long, drawn out and painful infanticide of years of neglect and abuse and social disadvantage to disposing of the unwanted life humanely before it attains meaningful self-awareness. I get it. You’re a sadist.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    I’m sorry Dave but your whole last argument was bullshit.

    First of all where is the evidence that supports your assertion that women throw their babies in dumpsters or leave them at the prom so frequently. Nationally the number of times we hear of this happening per year can be counted on one hand. But maybe you have evidence of the hundreds of cases where this has happened and we just havne’t heard about it.

    Secondly……there are no guarentees for happiness or well being for any person that is born into any family or set of circumstances yet you assume that a child will definitely have a miserable existence if he/she is born to a woman that may not be fully prepared to have that child and that based on this assumption the child would be better off not having the right to be born in the first place.

    So in essence you think it’s OK to play god based on your preconceived notions which have absolutely nothing to do with reality.

    I don’t know about you Dave. Sometimes you make very well thought, reasoned points and other times you approch Moonraven-like levels of idiocy.

  • MBD

    “Well, if you want to change the subject, then fine.”

    No. I don’t want to change the subject.

    Let’s keep Abortion as the subject.

    The subject is killing the unborn because they get their oxygen from a source other than air.

    Life begins when there is a heartbeat. That is a sure sign of life and it is clear evidence of life.

    How did your subject of dumpsters, etc., get injectsd here?

  • troll

    so abortion is ok until the heart develops sufficiently to beat – ?

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    All these heartfelt arguments about living or killing miss the point , it is a woman’s right to choose if she wants to become a parent or not.

    It’s not playing god, whatever that means, it’s about choices.

  • A Concerned Citizen

    it is a woman’s right to choose if she wants to become a parent or not.

    She she make the choice before she opens her legs, not the baby’s head.

  • A Concerned Citizen

    *She should

    Sorry about that, guys :)

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    You appear to have confused sex with birth control – and debate with shock tactics.

  • MBD

    #71

    “so abortion is ok until the heart develops sufficiently to beat – ?”

    That’s a good place for the court to go next.

  • A Concerned Citizen

    Christopher

    You appear to have confused birth control and murder. Birth control is using the Pill and not getting pregnant. Murder is ripping a baby apart in the womb a la abortion. Big difference.

    It’s strange that you should refer to what I said as “shock tactics”. Maybe it was, but it did serve to make a larger point — people should decide whether they want to risk having kids before they have sex. Nothing good ever comes from irresponsibility.

    Abortion just shows our blindness, our hypocrisy. It defies everything we say we want as a people — such as peace amongst ourselves, freedom from violence, etc. How can we expect any of these things if we’re willing to let our mothers kill their own children? It’s beyond all reason. It makes no sense.

    If we can’t recognize our own responsibility and the value of all human beings, how can we be so arrogant as to presume to rectify any of society’s problems?

  • Arch Conservative

    “All these heartfelt arguments about living or killing miss the point , it is a woman’s right to choose if she wants to become a parent or not.”

    That’s your point of view Christopher.

    To others the bottom line is wether to kill a baby or not.

    By the way a woman can choose to have the baby and then give it up for adoption thereby still choosing not to be a parent but at the same time also choosing not to be a murderer.

  • Paul2

    A Concerned Citizen wrote:

    “She she make the choice before she opens her legs”

    Theres no way to get pregnant by doing that.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    ACC: Drivel. Abortion isn’t murder. More shock tactics…

    AC: Drivel. A mother who gives a baby up for adoption is still a parent. And abortion still isn’t murder.

  • Zedd

    Concerned

    #60

    I don’t want to be rude but you do realise that you didn’t say anything with that statement. What were you actually trying to say.

  • Zedd

    MBD

    Research programs beginning at 12 weeks of gestation, sought to maximize fetal potential. Test results show definite physical, mental, and emotional advantages to those in stimulated groups. These babies showed significantly greater height and head circumference, fine and gross motor performance, and speech and language acquisition. They also smiled and laughed in the first week after birth–something rarely seen in babies.

    How does this prove that they have desire. It proves that they are generating, growing and learning; changing slowly into viable human beings.

    The same test would more than likely produce the same results in a chimp or dog. You see the issue is not whether fetuses develop. That is what they do. If they didn’t they would spontaneously abort. Your saying that they develop faster when they receive a certain stimulation is a mute point. Every encounter contributes to their evolution. Receiving certain nutrients, everything has an effect as it does outside of the womb.

    You have not said anything profound.

    HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THEY HAVE DESIRES?

    Also, should I assume that you don’t kill insects or ANY living creature.

    Should I assume that you are a vegan?

    Have you bought your ticket yet to walk on glass for the real children who we KNOW desire to live???

    You see you say all of this and you don’t have to do a single thing. You body is unhampered. Your worst day of food poisoning doesn’t compare to morning sickness. You just rattle on about something that you know nothing about.

    Yes we are animals by the way. Also, are you aware that in the past most births were not live?

  • Zedd

    Paul2

    Your comment about a women making a choice when she opens her legs sounds profound but it is lacking on many levels.

    You have no idea the societal pressures that women are under. The manner in which you make your statement suggest that the decision making process is the same as with other things that we choose. It is not by any means. If it were, there would be very few births, even in married couples. There are a number of elements that contribute to women actually engaging in sex that don’t have anything to do with passion or the act it self in any way that men don’t understand. To over simplify this phenomenon is to choose to be ignorant about this matter. Were it as simple as your saying suggests, there would be very few unplanned pregnancies, just as there are few murders or other acts of impulse that have serious consequences. Surely a thinking man like yourself has considered that.

    To actually say that a moment (and it often is just a moment) of confusion (for women its often confusion and not passion) should result in an entire lifetime of immensely unimaginable responsibility the extent to which most men cant comprehend, is odd at best and punitive to no measure.

    You also seem to be over illuminating the relevance of existing. Being the human being that I am, I would not miss being me had I not been born. I don’t understand what glory you think fetuses are missing out on. We are alive and we progress because we are here but we don’t crave our daily existence or even feel appreciative of it. Yes we don’t want to get injured or feel pain and discomfort but dreading the notion of ceasing to exist is not the challenge for us. It means nothing. That is why people had to create or highlight (depending on your belief system) the notion of HELL or reincarnation. If death just meant you stopped being then what would be the big deal really.

    Now fetus don’t know religion. So it doesn’t seem to be that they would have the dread of ceasing to exist. Are their nerve ending developed to the extent that they would even feel pain prior to 12weeks? Fear of injury wouldn’t exist.

    I work with children in the inner city. It pains me just how many millions of lives just drift on day after day from birth until death. No one really cares about the meaningfulness of their lives, they just exist for the next pair of fancy tennis shoes and then some rims and then some jewelry and then a gold tooth and then a stable of women who they impregnate and then death.

    One would think that those who see life to be so significant would be the greatest champions of promoting the notion of an abundant life for all who live. Getting volunteers to help with our work is so difficult because we don’t want media recognition, we just want to do the work and to change lives, one child at a time.

  • Zedd

    Paul2

    Please excuse the typos (tenses, plurals, etc.) My mind was zooming while trying to be mom all at once.

  • Arch Conservative

    AC: Drivel. A mother who gives a baby up for adoption is still a parent. And abortion still isn’t murder.

    No it’s not murder in the sense that murder is an illegal act and currently abortions are legal. You have me on a technicality.

    But it is however the unnecessary taking of a human life and all the tea and crumpet eating limeys and American liberals can deny it all they want but that doesn’t change the reality of the situation.

    I hate to agree with Zedd and I’m amazed he didn’t somehow work the issue of racism into his discussion of abortion, but there are a lot of people who just drift through life. However this does not mean they’d be better off is someone decided for them that they never had a life in the first place. It’s the typical bullshit liberal argument….”life for a lot will suck so we might as well kill them anyway.” This argument is quite hyporcritical coming from a lot that rants and raves about “personal choice.” They believe others shouldn’t make choices for women but then use an argument that says “we will make the ultimatum choice for those who cannot choose for themselves and we will choose to kill them because we believe they are better off that way.”

    The bottom line is that it is the taking of a life and you don’t have a problem with it because either:

    A. You don’t believe it is a life because you are a fucking moron.

    B. You believe it’s a life but believe that preventing the mother’s lifestyle from being cramped or compromised is more important because you have no soul.

  • MBD

    Zedd sedd:

    “Yes we are animals by the way”

    Yes we are animals… but that doesn’t mean women should act like them by allowing someone to tear apart babies with beating hearts the way a crocodile would tear apart a baby that fell in the water.

    Your bleeding heart for the poor is admirable but your disdain for the unborn is barbaric.

    But stop connecting kids who were able to be born with those who are slaughtered. They are not in the same category. I don’t know anyone who said, “I wish I had been aborted.”

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THEY HAVE DESIRES?

    MBD knows they have desires because he can talk to them psychically. Dolphins too. And they all desire him.

    Dave

  • daryl d.

    Although I’m really torn about the whole abortion issue, I wonder why wingnuts think abortion is bad but killing babies in Iraq is good.

  • MBD

    Dave — Don’t believe what the dolphins are telling you. You need more rest. And don’t drink too much.

    If that doesn’t work, let me know.

  • MBD

    “I wonder why wingnuts think abortion is bad but killing babies in Iraq is good.;

    To set the record straight..

    Abortion is bad.

    Killing babies in Iraq is bad.

    Does that clear up your confusion?

    If not, please provide the names of the wing nuts you’re talking about so we can talk to them.

  • Zedd

    MBD

    What you have said is that abortion is bad because you believe it is.

    Off course if you believe it is, then you should stand up for your views vehemently in your life.

    However since you don’t have proof for why you believe what you believe, it only stands that you should leave people who don’t believe as you do alone. There is nothing scientific to support your views. You just FEEL that they are babies, 1 inch, 1/3 ounce babies. If you bend the first notch of your index finger, that is the size of these “babies” that you are talking about.

    Sperm is one phase (you don’t value it). A zygote is another and an embryo is another and so on. None of these are babies. Those little tadpoles are cute under a microscope but you are not all sentimental about them. But because women are now involved(and you are off the hook) and because of the potential of the organism becoming a baby, you prematurely look at this embryo as a human.

    From an emotional stand point, the idea of them is cute. They seem adorable but they are not human beings.

  • MBD

    “They seem adorable but they are not human beings.”

    What are they? Are they animals, plants or minerals? Or do you have another category you’ve discovered.

    Are they plants? No.

    Are they minerals? No.

    So, they must be animals.

    There are tens of thousands of different animals so I won’t list them here. Look them up and make your selection.

    Then get back to me.

    I’ll be waiting.

  • Arch Conservative

    “From an emotional stand point, the idea of them is cute. They seem adorable but they are not human beings.”

    Again… the topic of the post was partial birth abortions and at that stage they most certainly human beings.

  • J.J. Hunsecker

    I don’t know anyone who said, “I wish I had been aborted.”

    That doesn’t mean no one said it, as I’m guessing the insane, particularly the suicidal might very well have.

    So how many children have you adopted so far, MDB?

  • Zedd

    MBD

    Your bleeding heart for the poor is admirable but your disdain for the unborn is barbaric.

    I have neither a bleeding heart for the poor nor disdain for the unborn.

    I am confused as to why you must leap to extreme, cliches to converse about this topic. None of what you have stated is real. Not your knowledge of embryos desires, babies being ripped apart, my bleeding heart for the poor or my disdain for the unborn. Its all just an endless emotional ramble.

    Perhaps you should sit down and determine what it is you really believe and why you believe it.

    If it’s that “it just doesn’t SEEM right” or “It FEEls wrong to me”. Then fair enough. But don’t pretend to have science behind what you say because you will only weaken your position and destroy your credibility.

    Whoever said that actually wanting to do something tangible about a situation that affects humans as opposed to just talking about it reflects a bleeding heart is childish. Its simply a defense mechanism for people who feel guilty for not being proactive about the issues that plague our society. I am Black. We have a gigantic problem. I left corporate America to address it. Bleeding heart? I don’t understand.

    I want the option to discontinue a pregnancy of an embryo or early fetus. How does that meld into a disdain for the unborn. The discontinuation would not come out of disdain for the embryo. That would be weird. It would come out of not wanting it to continue to develop into a human. For many the reason is because the woman would not be able to provide a life that is fitting for it. That is not disdain. Placing an individual on this planet who is expected to live 70+ years, putting them in a situation where they will endure the pain and challenges that come with life; a life that may not be wonderful because of not having a good foundation from the start, knowing that it is they who will pay the ultimate price alone, seems selfish. Also having a child when you are not a clear minded individual who is psychologically healthy and loving, is also VERY selfish. That individual can be anti choice all day long but they are selfish if they have a child.

  • Zedd

    Arch

    The article was about how we don’t have partial birth abortion but we have an epidemic of abortions.

    Stop the usual theatrics and drama. No human beings are being killed.

  • Zedd

    MBD

    What are they

    They are embryos and or fetuses. Are you alright? Surely you weren’t waiting for this response.

    What do you call sperm? Do you call them human beings? Do you have little funerals for them with your partner or alone?

    Sperm are a form at a certain stage so are embryo so are fetuses. None of which are human beings.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Every sperm is sacred
    Every sperm is great
    If a sperm is wasted
    God gets quite irate.

    dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Raiding the liquor cabinet again, Dave?

  • MBD

    “What are they? They are embryos and or fetuses.”

    Correct.

    And embryos and fetuses consist of human tissue just like the composition of your body.

    All that you need to continue living is sustenance. And all that embryos and fetuses need to continue living is sustenance.

    Some un-aborted embryos and fetuses embrace killing their own progeny while helpless.

    It’s a battle between helpless embryos and fetuses and un-aborted embryos and fetuses.

    As an un-aborted embryo and fetus you appear to fall into the category of those wanting to kill the helpless.

    Killing the helpless is the worst form of barbarism.

  • MBD

    “Raiding the liquor cabinet again, Dave?”

    I warned him about that.

    But he just doesn’t listen.

    The question is whether he deserves sympathy or more admonishment.

  • STM

    Dave wrote: “Every sperm is sacred
    Every sperm is great
    If a sperm is wasted
    God gets quite irate.”

    I’m in really deep shit, then.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Bing (writing under the moniker “Arch Conservative”) writes,

    It’s disgusting how those who perpetrate infanticide with unrestrained glee seek to frame every single abortion as a matter of choosing between the woman’s life and health and the child’s life.

    Most abortions are not in fact decisions that weigh the mother’s life against the baby. Most abortions are rather the mother deciding that she would rather murder her baby because she’s “not ready” to have kids or “it’s not the right time.” Well guess what………life throws curve-balls at all of us and a lot of the time we’re wholly unprepared to deal with them. However, a decent person makes the right decision not the easy one. having and abortion is, in most cases, the epitome of selfishness.

    First of all, Bing, I fixed your typos; you’re welcome.

    Your attitude comes of a society that is rich enough to feed every child born in it. In America, or Scandinavia, these arguments have some weight. This is why I feel that abortions should be done as a last resort, rather than a day-after birth control measure. Plus, there is a dehumanizing aspect to much of the “pro-choice” arguments. Note below:

    The thing is–this ruling doesn’t pertain only to viable fetuses. Now, by federal law, if I am a woman who is 13 weeks pregnant and my life is endangered by the pregnancy, and my doctor believes that a dilation and extraction abortion is necessary, it’s now illegal.

    It’s disturbing to see people arguing the propaganda of “Partial Birth Abortion,” when that’s not what the law actually states and that’s not the reality. That language is propaganda meant to mobilize people based on emotional appeals that are not based in fact.

    A “viable fetus” is another way of saying, “an unborn baby that has a good chance of living if allowed to be born”. The woman posting under the moniker “my body my choice” talks about a “procedure.” The fact that a potential person’s life is being snuffed out is not mentioned.

    Having said all this, I cannot countenance the argument that abortion is always wrong unless it threatens the life of the mother. In a society rich enough to feed all the offspring resulting even from the irresponsible sexual practices of its members, this is a legitimate argument. In truly poor societies. Bing, your attitude assumes that the society is actually rich enough to feed all of its members and potential members. RIGHT NOW, this may be true of the United States. Bur it wasn’t always so, and may not continue to be so.

    The real issue here – the ones not addressed by either “pro-life” or “pro-choice” sides – is the issue of responsible sexual behavior. If sex results in AIDS, folks get scared and either abstain or do something to try and prevent catching a fatal disease. But if sex results in pregnancy, the solution is “end the pregnancy,” (the “dis-ease”) and continuing to copulate irresponsibly, literally “doing whatever the fuck they desire”.

    IN A POOR SOCIETY, there is real pain to ending a pregnancy. The baby may be wanted badly – but the parents (usually the mother) have to make a calculated decision as to which is crueller: allowing a baby to die of malnutrition, or ending its life before it has to suffer.

    IMHO, ON BALANCE, the decision of the United States supreme court was a reasonable one. It did not overturn a “right” to abortions, but put a significant restriction on them, forcing those engaging in sex to think about the reasonable consequence of having sex – babies. That is fair – in a rich society, depriving a baby of a chance at life because it might inconvenience the life style of the mother is wrong.

  • Zedd

    MBD

    You aren’t making a good argument at all. Sorry to say. Again I suggest that you not attempt to use science or logic as a support for your stance. Your position is based on your emotions and nothing more. That is perfectly acceptable off course. However trying to make what you feel, fit into an already existing scientific order doesn’t always work.

    For instance I am a Christian. I know that it is irrational. I don’t reason my way into my belief of the Divine. It is purely spiritual and emotional. Actually I feel that those who try to make science out of Christianity do it a disservice. It has greater profundity IMO.

    Now as for your “argument”, a tadpole is not a frog and vice verse.

    A sperm is not a human and vice verse. However it is your prerogative to think so. It must be a challenge to name each of them and conduct a formal burial for each of them.

    I suppose we should walk away from this “debate”. Because what we are actually debating is what you FEEL and we can not debate that now can we.

  • MBD

    “Because what we are actually debating is what you FEEL and we can not debate that now can we”

    Maybe you can’t debate it… but I can.

    You would do better if you stuck with the subject.

    Partial Birth Abortion.

  • J.J. Hunsecker

    Since you have ignored the question, MBD, I’m guessing it’s safe to assume you haven’t adopted any children. If you aren’t going to doing anything to help the children we have, spare us the hollow rhetoric about what we should do with the unborn.

    Just because you have an overinflated view of man’s place and worth in the universe, it doesn’t mean everyone else should live their life accordingly.

  • Zedd

    MBD

    I’ll take that as a male version of conceding.

  • MBD

    I’m always amused by those who ASSUME what others do or do not do.

    Like others who are mentally challenged, they cannot distinguish between fact and fantasy.

    They attempt to debate an issue on its merits — but when unable to do so in an intelligent way, they revert to spinning their fantasy.

  • Zedd

    MBD

    I’ll take that as a very male version of admitting defeat and wanting to throw a jab in there.

    I’m done.

    You sir are king of all sperm! Among all of the millions your swimming abilities were beyond all others. That buff tail of yours sent you far above all others. You sir are THE man!! You were a zygote among all others. There has never been a more exciting and attractive zygote. As an embryo, your sonogram stands out among others!! What a hunk! And now, what more can be said. Yum yum! You are the greatest. I bow to thee BWD! To thee I bow!

  • J.J. Hunsecker

    I’m always amused by those who can’t answer a simple question, especially when the truth reveals what hypocrites they are.

  • MBD

    I’m always amused by those who ask irrelevant questions while trying to make a case for their inability to debate the issue at hand and then whine or spew asinine venom when their inability to debate is exposed.

  • J.J. Hunsecker

    Sounds like you amuse yourself a great deal.

  • MBD

    It usually happens when I encounter fools.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    So who pissed furthest?

  • J.J. Hunsecker

    Please. You are the one who has shown yourself to be a phony and a fool, expecting others to live under your ideas while all you do is provide lip service. Although it’s really no surprise considering your ego-centric views.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    At the half, it’s Hunsecker by a nose…

  • MBD

    “So who pissed furthest?”

    I concede that J.J Hunsecker pissed the furthest.

    J.J Hunsecker is a real pisser.

  • Arch Conservative

    JJ no one really cares for your bullshit retread leftists justifications of abortion. [Personal attack deleted]

    I bet they’d love you at the daily KOS.

  • Zedd

    Wow you guys are doing quite a job of discussing abortion and pregnancy!!

    Oh snap I forgot, you don’t have much to say about the topic because you don’t know what you are talking about.

  • MBD

    #68 Dave comments:

    “You prefer the long, drawn out and painful infanticide of years of neglect and abuse and social disadvantage to disposing of the unwanted life humanely before it attains meaningful self-awareness.“

    I never thought of it that way.

    So, let’s also get rid of 90% of the world’s children just after birth because they most likely will experience years of neglect and abuse and social disadvantage.

    Let’s humanely put them out of their misery before they achieve meaningful self-awareness by drilling holes in their skulls and sucking out their brains. Or alternatively, douse them with chemicals and then chop them into pieces. On the other hand, it might be more efficient to simply gas them.

    That will keep them from being unwanted. They will certainly appreciate being better off.

    Your comment is not only sadistic, it’s idiotic.

  • MBD

    “Wow you guys are doing quite a job of discussing abortion and pregnancy!!

    Oh snap I forgot, you don’t have much to say about the topic because you don’t know what you are talking about.”

    Zedd — what do you know about the topic of war? How many wars have you fought in?

    JJ stopped his pissing contest. How about you? Aw shit, I forgot. You’re not equipped.

  • Zedd

    MBD

    I don’t discuss the details of war. I know nothing of the strategic engineering of war or combat and I dont talk about it. I don’t care too either.

    I do understand conflict and politics and their results. I do discuss those subjects.

    Now move along…..

  • troll

    MBD – you base part of your argument on ‘magical’ thinking…

    just like a suicide is not around to relish the pain his action has caused an aborted child cannot ‘appreciate’ anything

    abortion only has to do with the living