We cannot return to a time without choice

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 3/30/04 | Dianne Feinstein

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Last week, the U.S. Senate passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which, for the very first time, will put into federal law the concept that life begins at conception. Though I offered an alternative that would have had the same effect in criminal law without addressing this profound and deeply divisive question, anti-abortion advocates defeated the measure.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

...thereby giving legal rights to the fertilized egg...,

or, to put it another way, the human being.

[coloradan]

We can't return to a world without guns either, Mz. Feinstein, but you sure keep trying to anyway!

[lilylangtree]

It takes an ova and sperm (two genders) to create life. Yet with the abortionists, one gender gets to play God and decide life or death for that life all because that gender has the baby carriage inside her to nestle the created life. Something is indeed wrong with this picture.

[Argus]

I'll settle for just returning to a time without Feinstein.

[Toddsterpatriot]

-- promoted abstinence-only sex education for students both here and abroad, though its success at reducing the rates of pregnancy and transmission of sexually transmitted diseases has been questioned.

Abstinence works 100% everytime it's tried. What's the rate for condoms?

[pax_et_bonum]

The situation is snowballing. Federal laws, along with more than 350 anti- choice measures enacted by states over the past decade, are setting legal precedents that anti-abortion supporters will use to challenge Roe vs. Wade. It is entirely possible that the landmark decision could be overturned.

Thanks be to God.

[aruanan]

We cannot return to a time without choice

There never has been a time without choice. There were just different consequences for those choices.

[JimRed]

She (we) has the choice to participate or not in the activity that may result in pregnancy. She (we) has a choice to use or not use contraception.

Why should her (our) bad choice cost another life?

[jtminton]

Have you ever noticed that the pro-death people always use the phrase "a woman's right to choose." They never specify WHAT that are choosing. Coke vs. Pepsi? Ketchup vs. mustard?

NO!! THEY ARE CHOOSING TO MURDER THEIR BABY!!!!!!

If 'the right to choose (to kill your baby)' was such a normal and healthy thing, why does it have to be referred to with such tippy-toe phrases like "the right to choose"?

[xrp]

You took the words right off my keyboard!

[stylin_geek]

She will gladly let our freedoms be slowly eroded, yet if there is any encroachment on a womans right to an abortion, she sounds the hue and cry.

Disgusting yet typical.

[Pietro]

"The situation is snowballing."

That's because more and more people are coming to the realization that abortion is terribly wrong. And its wrong under any circumstances.

Let the pro-abortion groups get up in front of the American people and defend PBA. Please.

[Pietro]

"The situation is snowballing."

That's because more and more people are coming to the realization that abortion is terribly wrong. And its wrong under any circumstances.

Let the pro-abortion groups get up in front of the American people and defend PBA. Please.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

News flash!Women had the right to choose before abortion!It was a matter of CHOOSING to drop the panties or NOT!

[umgud]

We cannot return to a time without choice

We must retain the right to kill our unborn, even if we have to bear them to do it.

[Coeur de Lion]

Feinstein is being as is usual typically disengenuous with respect to this issue. It's really not all that important except for the fact that's also reflective of the current debate over "partial birth" abortion

Feinstein is logically inconsistent in many ways the least being that she's opposed to using elective abortion for selecting the sex of the child. Or should I say gender. I still wonder what she would think about elective abortion of a child which displayed characteristics of being a hermaphrodite. I'm sure that might run contrary to her views concerning future "trans-gender" folks.

The real elephant in the parlor though is that Roe v. Wade which granted women the "right to choose" was decided on the issue of viability of the fetus not the definition of whether a fetus was a human being (though this was either stated or inferred). Viability in the original argument also didn't extend into the third trimester of pregnancy either. I raise this point because the pro-abortionists have and continue to use the argument that if you define the fetus as a human being that somehow that's going to impede on either a women's "right to choose" or a complete roll-back of Roe v Wade. Since Roe v. Wade has been extended out to emcompass all elective abortion by these same advocates, I really don't see that they've anything much to worry about!

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

Sure we can. Germany did in 1945. At least the kind of "choice" that both Nazi exterminationists and Feminazis have in mind: killing the politically hated.

[Mad Dawg]

We cannot return to a time without choice

No, no, I agree. We MUST have choice, unfettered choice. I mean, look what happened when principle triumphed over choice in the matter of, say, slavery. I liked them good old days when states had the right to choose to say that one class of beings, apparently human, was not really human at all and therefore not entitled to civil rights.

Works for me ...

The other day I saw my new favorite bumper sticker, probably not at all news to you all. It said,"Save the baby humans!"

[arkady_renko]

This is just pure evil.

A_R

[onedoug]

Bump.