FReep this FOX NEWS dot com POLL on abortion!!!

Fox News Dot Com ^ | 6/17/2003 | Fox News Dot Com Poll

[Mr. Silverback]

Whatever.

BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's your whole argument, "Whatever"? Why in the world do you come to this forum to embarass yourself like this?

[Mr. Silverback]

See posts #53, 54 and 161. i think you'll enjoy them.

[Mr. Silverback]

Oh, you're talking about a law banning hysterectomies?

Nice shot!

[jwalsh07]

Gcruse raises my hackles. :-}

Can Norma McCorvey's claims carry weight with the SCOTUS?

[Mr. Silverback]

Every time I have been on an abortion thread, the prolife side has gone immediately to ad hominem and stayed there.

OK, so in your mind...

"The fetus is human and therefore the State has a duty to protect it from murder" is ad hominem...

BUT

"Do you really believe an intrusive moralistic state is what freedom is all about? Oh, wait, yes you do." and "[describing pro-lifers] Once people taste the nectar of control over other's lives, they can't be talked back down" are not ad hominem. Yeah. Sure.

Now, I will admit you are probably referring to comments like this one of mine...

Stop and consider this for a moment: You believe this country is only on the right path if a woman can have her child hacked to bits for any reason. In other words, you believe that child murder is part of the American ideal.

...but at most you are complaining about the same thing you are doing yourself. Really though, what it seems like is that you say "Roe v. Wade is freedom" and we say "Roe v. Wade is murder" and you cry out "WAAAAAAHHHH!!! Ad hominem! Religious fanatics!" take your ball, and run home to Mama. Dang, man, those are DU tactics. Are you using the liberal magic eight-ball to formulate your responses?

Personal attack seems to be the only way they can think of to deal with someone who values liberty over religion.

I value my faith more than my own freedom, but I value the freedom of others (including the freedom to not follow my or any other religion) very highly, and often more highly than they themselves do. Legal abortion is not liberty, it is just a matter of delegating tyranny to the individual who owns the uterus or (far too often) to those who can lie to/manipulate her. Opposing it is not religion. Slavery was not religion or liberty, either. It was the delegation of tyranny to the guy with the plantation.

BTW, I was pretty sure that you were working under a bad definition of "ad hominem," so to refresh my memory I googled it, and look what came up first. Here's an example of ad hominem argument from that page:

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Change "Dave" to gcruse and the stuff about priests to "you're a Christian conservative, therefore you like theocratic tyranny" and you've got the FR reality.

[Torie]

They will carry zero weight. The actual facts of the case are irrelevant. In fact, appellate level courts sometimes color the facts to get where they want to go.

[Mr. Silverback]

It was easy to find a doctor who would do it in the normal "safe" (for me) manner. The coat hanger stuff is really not a reality. The reason so many women died from abortions was before they had antibiotics.

Pram, please comment on the following if you would be so kind. The first is a specualtion of mine, the second is a definite reality, the third is a question:

1. A back-alley abortionist writing a bunch of antibiotic scripts in the 50s or 60s might have been called upon to explain why he was writing the scripts. Therefore, he would be better off crossing his fingers and hoping that there would be no post-op infections, or that victims of post-op infections would seek help elsewhere and keep their mouths shut about how the infection occurred.

2. A large percentage, if not 100%, of back-alley abortionists simply hung a legal abortionist shingle out in late January of '73. The "butchers" who were used to scare us into Roe v. Wade became the abortion providers of the post-Roe era.

3. In the pre-Roe era, were the patients getting prosecuted for abortion participation, or just the doctors?

BTW, isn't this the sort of thing RvW was supposed to save women from?

From this thread:
An ardently pro-life mother of two, Melody Oliver never dreamed of seeking an abortion. But after being sexually assaulted during a date last spring, she found herself at a Louisville, Ky., abortion clinic..."I thought the one reason the government made abortion legal was so women could be in a clean environment with medical doctors," said Oliver, a licensed practical nurse who has seen abortion-mutilated women in the Bowling Green emergency room where she works. "But there was an inch of dust on everything. The health department would have shut down my hospital in five minutes for any one of the violations I saw in that place." Not only that, but Oliver suspected the clinic was bilking patients for money..."I had just been at my OB’s office and I knew I was 12 to 14 weeks pregnant, but their estimate was 18 weeks," Oliver said. "That wouldn’t seem to matter — except that the price of the abortion depends on the age of the fetus."

Oliver got dressed, paid the $300 the clinic charged for ultrasounds, and on her way out asked the receptionist if he thought all women were stupid.

[Mr. Silverback]

I'm not sure they'll carry zero weight, but I am not expecting her to get too far. One thing that's cool, though, is that this story probably increases dramatically the number of women who know who Jane Roe really is. I have found that most of the women who know Norma McCorvey exists are already rock-solid pro-lifers, the rest just think Jane Roe is still out there somewhere doing great feminist stuff...

[Mr. Silverback]

Though some adoption agencies (and nearly all governement child welfare arms) perpetuate racism in adoption, some blame must be laid at the feet of parents who will not adopt a child of another race, those who are so enamored of their own genes that they chase after fertility treatments until they are too old to adopt, and abortionists who are only glad to tell young women that their black or mulatto child will never be adopted, so aborting him or raising him are the only real choices.

[Mr. Silverback]

I also wonder if some girls would think twice (at least) about having sex if it wasn't so easy to get out of the consequences of one's actions?

The Pill is often hailed as the advance that allowed the sexual revolution to move into full swing, but I think abortion was the key. Your thoughts?

[jwalsh07]

They will carry zero weight. The actual facts of the case are irrelevant. In fact, appellate level courts sometimes color the facts to get where they want to go.

Lovely, you made my day.

[Terriergal]

I think they were catalysts yeah. Probably both of them just as much, depending on the woman. Some women possibly didn't tolerate the early pill as well, so abortion was favored in their case. But underlying it all is a lack of moral grounding.

[MHGinTN]

The contraceptive pill (and IUD, both of which have abortifacient activity, but that is strictly out as a topic when describing the contraceptive potentials to the woman/girl) acted to release the restraints and the promiscuity began to rise, but the legalization of killing another individual in order to avoid the consequences of consensual (and therefore implicit contractual) sexual behavior exploded the promiscuity trends.

[Lorianne]

The same should be said about boys thinking of the consequences.

[First Amendment]

1. A back-alley abortionist writing a bunch of antibiotic scripts in the 50s or 60s might have been called upon to explain why he was writing the scripts. Therefore, he would be better off crossing his fingers and hoping that there would be no post-op infections, or that victims of post-op infections would seek help elsewhere and keep their mouths shut about how the infection occurred.

I have a wonderful book by the Drs/ Willey, I believe their names are (a husband and wife team) and they have all the answers. So I'll amend myself later if need be. But as far as I know, the known deaths from abortions (at that time, mostly illegal) went way down in the late 40's and early 50's with the advent of antibiotics. It had nothing to do with legality. Since many of the illegal aboritonists were doctors, it wasn't a big problem writing a prescrition and having it look as though it was for something else. The known deaths from abortions went way, way down in the 40s-50s-, long before RvW. Additionally, the deaths from current, legal abortions are not all made known to the public, since it isn't in abortion providers' interest to have it be known that abortion isn't safe for women, either. So the casue of death for women who die now from abortion is often called something else.

2. A large percentage, if not 100%, of back-alley abortionists simply hung a legal abortionist shingle out in late January of '73. The "butchers" who were used to scare us into Roe v. Wade became the abortion providers of the post-Roe era.

This is true. The safety or non-safety of abortions is not because they are legal or non-legal. The "procedure" is the same, and the coat hanger thing is basically a bogey man to scare people. Even today, women die, since the whole procedure is violent and often dangerous to the life and health of the non-mother, and always to the baby.

3. In the pre-Roe era, were the patients getting prosecuted for abortion participation, or just the doctors?

I do not know the answer to this. I know when I committed my abortion (around 1968-69) the thought of prosecution didn't enter my mind. Too bad.

[victim soul]

I second your thoughts.

[Taxman]

Thank you.

That is why we are in this battle for the soul of our country, is it not?