Replies

My sister was a young RN in a big city hospital in the late 60's and early 70's before Roe-Wade. She says there was a steady stream of desperate young women hemorrhaging (don't know how to spell this), with perforated uteruses, etc.

You still didn't answer the question. If the abortion issue doesn't belong in the courts and criminal justice system, WHERE does it belong? An unborn child should be afforded every protection available to you and me by law. Where are our laws dealt with? In the courts and within the criminal justice system as a whole.

When you say "steady stream" I think I would have to disagree with that and call it what it is, an exaggeration. Yes, there were women who did have post abortive complications, I agree. The numbers weren't as high as some would have you believe though.

My sister was a young RN in a big city hospital in the late 60's and early 70's before Roe-Wade. She says there was a steady stream of desperate young women hemorrhaging (don't know how to spell this), with perforated uteruses, etc.

What does steady stream mean? That could mean a couple per year to 10 per day. My understanding is that the whole back-alley thing was way over-blown, although I admit I could be wrong there.

But, you further proved my general point about the illogic of your opinions by replying with another platitude that has been washed into your head, meanwhile refusing to examine the logic of certain of your beleifs such as the idea that anything that can't be 100% prevented should be made legal.

She says there was a steady stream of desperate young women hemorrhaging (don't know how to spell this), with perforated uteruses, etc.

This is my mother's argument as well.

But two wrongs don't make a right. If the supreme right of an individual is their right to life, then the right of the baby to life clearly trumps the mother's right to privacy (a silly argument) or her right "to control her own body".

Of course she has the right to control her own body, up to the point where she uses it to create another human being. The only bright line between "tissue" and "human" occurs at conception. Any argument used to justify abortion after conception can similarly justify abortion after birth. (If you don't think so, try me.)

The legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals. That's why abortion is quite properly the subject of law, as it protects babies from having their right to life violated.

Well I guess now 40 million dead babies later, it's a good thing we exchanged that "steady stream" of botched backroom abortion injuries with a steady stream of dead babies.

What wisdom we possess.

Another thing, did the Pill bring about an end to unwanted pregnancies or not?

maybe so...if not for the pill...we probably would have murdered 2-300 million babies since Roe and the feminazis would have even more to celebrate about choice.

On the dead doc and his minion: I shed not even one crocodile tear for either but we cannot go around killing folks we disagree with on this issue ...yet. It would have to be a full civil war and we are a long way from that and the enemy would have to be engaged as well.

It could happen but if it does it will involve a catalyst besides abortion.

My sister was a young RN in a big city hospital in the late 60's and early 70's before Roe-Wade. She says there was a steady stream of desperate young women hemorrhaging (don't know how to spell this), with perforated uteruses, etc.

Yes, there were illegal abortions before Roe. Yes, some women died of them. By that reasoning, consider that women also commit infanticide. Should we allow them to kill any born infant up to, let's say, 3 months because they "do it anyway?" Why 3 months? Why not stop at 6 months? Two years? Seventeen years? For that matter, why shouldn't spouses who don't want the hassle of a divorce just be able to kill their inconvenient spouses legally, since they do it illegally right now?