Why Can't the Pro-Choice Crowd Be Honest?

[jillian]

So you concur that from conception it is a human being. Good.

Now you want to know the 'right and wrong' of destroying that human being via:

abortion
RU486
discarding fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic
(I believe the morning after pill prevents conception)



It's been answered throughout this thread. So sad that you can't see the answer for yourself.

Try answering JB's question that's been asked of you ad nauseum.

no one is asking you the right and wrong of destroying a fetus. the question is when does government have the right to insert itself into a woman's body? and when do you get the right to make decisions for others?

if someone feels strongly about this issue, that's fine. but they need to keep those feelings away from anyone who isn't asking for their input.... same as with religion. everyone's entitled to their own. no one has the right to, uninvited, impose their religion on others.

and, ultimately, isn't that what we're talking about?

No, that's not what he's asking. Abortion IS legal and he knows it. His 'legal or illegal' question has been answered several times in this thread he just can't fathom that 'pro-lifers', for the most part, aren't interested in punishing the woman and he equates THAT to us not really believing that what grows inside the womb really is a person.

He is asking about the 'right or wrong' of removing said human being via those methods. The topic may have started with 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' but has turned, as it always does, into what actually grows inside of the womb. And, if he is asking about government intervention? Why would anyone bother answering him when he flat out refuses to answer questions?

you presume anyone has to justify anything to him. you can't. there is nothing to say to him or anyone else that feels what he does that would convince them or that they'd find credible... same as there is nothing that can be said to me that would change my mind on this subject.

and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.

but the radical right doesn't seem to want to do that.

I think forcing a debate on a subject like this forces people to take less than straightforward positions sometimes. I also think sometimes it doesn't matter what the answers are. People have to do what they have to do.

Hypothetical: Person A has tried for years to get pregnant. They go for in vitro and 3 embryos implant. Person A is told she cannot carry triplets to term and needs a selective termination of 2. It is not optional. Either she will die or the pregnancy will terminate or whatever results from the pregnancy will be severly damaged. Perhaps she has to be on bed rest even though the risk will remain unchanged and can't afford to.

Do you tell the woman she has to carry the triplets? (Remember, this is someone who wants a baby). Or do you accept her decision to have the selective termination.

I've raised similar hypotheticals before. I'd love an honest answer.

 

[syrenn]

Why do you people have to lie? The baby never was your body and I never bought your bullshit line.

If I put you underwater and keep you there, you die. Same if I put you into a fire. Any human, at any stage of development, dies outside of the environment for which it is meant.

If you're not part of Earth's body, why can't you survive outside her atmosphere?

So you agree that it is a parasite, a parasite that requites the environment of a host. If it is not part of a womans body then it is something alien to herself inhabiting her womb.

Good to know you see it at last.

First of all, a fetus is more of a symbiote than a parasite. Second of all, it's just another example of your extreme dishonesty - the point of this thread - that you think YOU have the right to tell someone ELSE that it's good that they see that the baby isn't the mother's body, when YOU are the one who keeps trumpeting, "A woman has a right to do what she wants with her body".

Thanks for demonstrating yet again how your position is based on nothing but self-serving lies with all your flip-flopping and topic-hopping. "It's a woman's body; no, wait, it's a parasite and separate".

Pathetic.

It is not a symoiote if one half of the equation wants out of the deal its not a symbiotic relationship. A symbiotic relationship requires two willing participants where EACH gets something out of the deal.

LOL, i am not the one trying to tell anyone they are wrong or even change anyones opinion. I AM giving my opinion. Though there are many here who are trying to tell people they are wrong or right. JB's last round of flipping is all about it NOT being part of the womans body..do read the thread.

A woman does have the right to do what she wants to HER body..and if she wants something out of her body..that is HER choice. Good to know you dont think you have rights over your body.

Where have i flipped on any of the topics being discussed in this tread?

If it is a life, c- section it out, give it birth at any time in its gestation, and let it have its life to itself.
If it NOT part of a womans body it is a parasite and a woman has the right to take it out of her body.
If it IS part of womans body then she has the right to do what she wants to with HER body.

 

[Vanquish]

First off, you need to know a bit about Judaic theology, as well as science.

In Judaic theology, it states that ElOhim (God of Many Powers) created the world. Says so in Genesis as a matter of fact. And, in their teachings, they state that God carves off a small piece of His energy which He then places into the embryo created by your parents at around the 40 day point of pregnancy.

Next, realize that what runs your body is the electricity that courses through your nervous system.

Take the Judaic concept and you would understand that your "soul" is actually the electricity that runs your nervous system.

1. Religious myths = science
2. You are interpreting the word "energy. Who says energy means electricity? do you DARE assume you know everything G*d knows? Be humble and just answer that with a polite "no."

3. Most importantly, the lack of a nervous system does NOT mean lack of humanity. All the parts are HUMAN and developing. The fact that the child isn't finished developing doesnt mean it's not going to become a human.

That's like saying...hey this apple just dropped from a tree...and it's half-way down at this point. Do you know for sure it'll hit the ground? Assuming there's nothing that bothers it...yep. It'll hit the ground. Has it done so yet? No. Can I be pretty damn certain? Yes.

There's your little thought experiment.

Anti-lifers want to use technicalities to get out of reasonable, rational thought. You know it's a kid...you just don't find it convenient. Admit it.

Funny, even you say it yourself in may posts

BECOME.

Which also implies that it is not a baby YET.

Good job not reading anything and just posting your own drivel.

That's NOT what I said.

First of all, the bullshit about energy and some Elohim is just someone's opinion. The energy being electricity and corresponding to a nervous system is entirely unprovable wogwash.

What is true is that from the moment of conception the baby is a human. To say that it's potentially human but not yet is false. It's human. You're killing a human life.

And you defend it because it's inconvenient....which is sad.

 

[Immanuel]

no one is asking you the right and wrong of destroying a fetus. the question is when does government have the right to insert itself into a woman's body? and when do you get the right to make decisions for others?

if someone feels strongly about this issue, that's fine. but they need to keep those feelings away from anyone who isn't asking for their input.... same as with religion. everyone's entitled to their own. no one has the right to, uninvited, impose their religion on others.

and, ultimately, isn't that what we're talking about?

No, that's not what he's asking. Abortion IS legal and he knows it. His 'legal or illegal' question has been answered several times in this thread he just can't fathom that 'pro-lifers', for the most part, aren't interested in punishing the woman and he equates THAT to us not really believing that what grows inside the womb really is a person.

He is asking about the 'right or wrong' of removing said human being via those methods. The topic may have started with 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' but has turned, as it always does, into what actually grows inside of the womb. And, if he is asking about government intervention? Why would anyone bother answering him when he flat out refuses to answer questions?

you presume anyone has to justify anything to him. you can't. there is nothing to say to him or anyone else that feels what he does that would convince them or that they'd find credible... same as there is nothing that can be said to me that would change my mind on this subject.

and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.

but the radical right doesn't seem to want to do that.

I think forcing a debate on a subject like this forces people to take less than straightforward positions sometimes. I also think sometimes it doesn't matter what the answers are. People have to do what they have to do.

Hypothetical: Person A has tried for years to get pregnant. They go for in vitro and 3 embryos implant. Person A is told she cannot carry triplets to term and needs a selective termination of 2. It is not optional. Either she will die or the pregnancy will terminate or whatever results from the pregnancy will be severly damaged. Perhaps she has to be on bed rest even though the risk will remain unchanged and can't afford to.

Do you tell the woman she has to carry the triplets? (Remember, this is someone who wants a baby). Or do you accept her decision to have the selective termination.

I've raised similar hypotheticals before. I'd love an honest answer.

Seems to me like what you are saying is, "now that my side has control of the government on this matter, y'all just have to STFU." Well, you would not use the STFU, but that is what you seem to be saying. That doesn't work, because if it did this and every issue would have been settled the day the Constitution was signed. And it that were the case, abortion would be illegal in every state in the union.

Immie

 

[Zoom-boing]

First you say it is now you say it is not. Can you please make up your mind? It either is a stand along thing or it is not. It is either part of a womans body in terms of she is the one living and breathing for it to keep it alive, or she is not. If she is not, then it should have no problems being taken out and put on a table at ANY stage of its gestation.

If it was in my body, it either is part of me, of which i have complete control, or it is not. If it isnot part of my body it should have no problem being outside of my body.

How hard is that for you to understand?

Just as you should have no problem surviving just fine in Siberia, regardless of being unprepared and unequipped to do so. Right?

Do i say not to assist the 4 week old cells once it is outside of its host environment? Do i say new born babies do not require assistance to survive? Do i say children do not need assistance to survive? No, i do not. Just as a baby needs assistance to survive in a new environment I would need assistance to survive in Siberia.

Again, feel free to give all the assistance to 4 week old tissue on a table you want. See if it survives.

If i was given all the assistance i wanted in Siberia...i would survive just fine.

I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.

 

[Vanquish]

no one is asking you the right and wrong of destroying a fetus. the question is when does government have the right to insert itself into a woman's body? and when do you get the right to make decisions for others?

if someone feels strongly about this issue, that's fine. but they need to keep those feelings away from anyone who isn't asking for their input.... same as with religion. everyone's entitled to their own. no one has the right to, uninvited, impose their religion on others.

and, ultimately, isn't that what we're talking about?

No, that's not what he's asking. Abortion IS legal and he knows it. His 'legal or illegal' question has been answered several times in this thread he just can't fathom that 'pro-lifers', for the most part, aren't interested in punishing the woman and he equates THAT to us not really believing that what grows inside the womb really is a person.

He is asking about the 'right or wrong' of removing said human being via those methods. The topic may have started with 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' but has turned, as it always does, into what actually grows inside of the womb. And, if he is asking about government intervention? Why would anyone bother answering him when he flat out refuses to answer questions?

you presume anyone has to justify anything to him. you can't. there is nothing to say to him or anyone else that feels what he does that would convince them or that they'd find credible... same as there is nothing that can be said to me that would change my mind on this subject.

and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.

but the radical right doesn't seem to want to do that.

I think forcing a debate on a subject like this forces people to take less than straightforward positions sometimes. I also think sometimes it doesn't matter what the answers are. People have to do what they have to do.

Hypothetical: Person A has tried for years to get pregnant. They go for in vitro and 3 embryos implant. Person A is told she cannot carry triplets to term and needs a selective termination of 2. It is not optional. Either she will die or the pregnancy will terminate or whatever results from the pregnancy will be severly damaged. Perhaps she has to be on bed rest even though the risk will remain unchanged and can't afford to.

Do you tell the woman she has to carry the triplets? (Remember, this is someone who wants a baby). Or do you accept her decision to have the selective termination.

I've raised similar hypotheticals before. I'd love an honest answer.

See that's a perfect hypothetical. I'm highly pro-life and I'd agree that for the mother's health (in the facts you've given us) that the selective termination is necessary to save the life of the mother. Honestly I'd like nature to work itself out by itself...but if the mother goes into distress, I agree that something has to be done.

 

[JFK_USA]

I don't really care to continue the useless argument but 8 more posts till 1,000!!!

 

[Ravi]

No, that's not what he's asking. Abortion IS legal and he knows it. His 'legal or illegal' question has been answered several times in this thread he just can't fathom that 'pro-lifers', for the most part, aren't interested in punishing the woman and he equates THAT to us not really believing that what grows inside the womb really is a person.

He is asking about the 'right or wrong' of removing said human being via those methods. The topic may have started with 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' but has turned, as it always does, into what actually grows inside of the womb. And, if he is asking about government intervention? Why would anyone bother answering him when he flat out refuses to answer questions?

you presume anyone has to justify anything to him. you can't. there is nothing to say to him or anyone else that feels what he does that would convince them or that they'd find credible... same as there is nothing that can be said to me that would change my mind on this subject.

and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.

but the radical right doesn't seem to want to do that.

I think forcing a debate on a subject like this forces people to take less than straightforward positions sometimes. I also think sometimes it doesn't matter what the answers are. People have to do what they have to do.

Hypothetical: Person A has tried for years to get pregnant. They go for in vitro and 3 embryos implant. Person A is told she cannot carry triplets to term and needs a selective termination of 2. It is not optional. Either she will die or the pregnancy will terminate or whatever results from the pregnancy will be severly damaged. Perhaps she has to be on bed rest even though the risk will remain unchanged and can't afford to.

Do you tell the woman she has to carry the triplets? (Remember, this is someone who wants a baby). Or do you accept her decision to have the selective termination.

I've raised similar hypotheticals before. I'd love an honest answer.

Seems to me like what you are saying is, "now that my side has control of the government on this matter, y'all just have to STFU." Well, you would not use the STFU, but that is what you seem to be saying. That doesn't work, because if it did this and every issue would have been settled the day the Constitution was signed. And it that were the case, abortion would be illegal in every state in the union.

Immie

Why do you say that? Obviously the founding fathers didn't care about the subject of abortion as they never addressed it nor did they count the unborn as persons.

 

[jillian]

No, that's not what he's asking. Abortion IS legal and he knows it. His 'legal or illegal' question has been answered several times in this thread he just can't fathom that 'pro-lifers', for the most part, aren't interested in punishing the woman and he equates THAT to us not really believing that what grows inside the womb really is a person.

He is asking about the 'right or wrong' of removing said human being via those methods. The topic may have started with 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' but has turned, as it always does, into what actually grows inside of the womb. And, if he is asking about government intervention? Why would anyone bother answering him when he flat out refuses to answer questions?

you presume anyone has to justify anything to him. you can't. there is nothing to say to him or anyone else that feels what he does that would convince them or that they'd find credible... same as there is nothing that can be said to me that would change my mind on this subject.

and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.

but the radical right doesn't seem to want to do that.

I think forcing a debate on a subject like this forces people to take less than straightforward positions sometimes. I also think sometimes it doesn't matter what the answers are. People have to do what they have to do.

Hypothetical: Person A has tried for years to get pregnant. They go for in vitro and 3 embryos implant. Person A is told she cannot carry triplets to term and needs a selective termination of 2. It is not optional. Either she will die or the pregnancy will terminate or whatever results from the pregnancy will be severly damaged. Perhaps she has to be on bed rest even though the risk will remain unchanged and can't afford to.

Do you tell the woman she has to carry the triplets? (Remember, this is someone who wants a baby). Or do you accept her decision to have the selective termination.

I've raised similar hypotheticals before. I'd love an honest answer.

See that's a perfect hypothetical. I'm highly pro-life and I'd agree that for the mother's health (in the facts you've given us) that the selective termination is necessary to save the life of the mother. Honestly I'd like nature to work itself out by itself...but if the mother goes into distress, I agree that something has to be done.

Thank you. Now the problem is that if one can get a termination for the reasons above, but not for other reasons during the same time period, then you are asking that someone make the decision as to when such decisions can be made. Because person A is entitled, and perhaps person B, you might think should not, who makes that decision? A judge? A politician? Or the woman and her doctor?

According to the House of Representatives, a hospital should be able to let that woman die rather than give her a life saving abortion.

The only way to address the issue is the way it was addressed... meaning within a certain time period after conception, it's the woman's call (in cooperation with her dr.). Later in the pregnancy raises other issues, but it seems that given the above, things are better left as they are.

 

[jillian]

I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.

is an egg a chicken? is there no distinction?

or is it just because you have a particular religious view, you think you can impose that view on everyone else?

 

[JBeukema]

and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.

Should everyone stay out of eachother's face when it comes to detonating a bomb inside an abortion clinic full of people?

As far as your hypo goes, answer it yourself.

At what age, and for what reason, does killing a child in cold blood go from being an okay thing to a not-okay thing?

Why is it wrong to kill you now if if was okay when you were younger?

 

[JBeukema]

A woman does have the right to do what she wants to HER body

Agree. Causing direct harm to another is a different matter. Or should raping grace and bombing a police station be legal, too?

 

[jillian]

Seems to me like what you are saying is, "now that my side has control of the government on this matter, y'all just have to STFU." Well, you would not use the STFU, but that is what you seem to be saying. That doesn't work, because if it did this and every issue would have been settled the day the Constitution was signed. And it that were the case, abortion would be illegal in every state in the union.

Immie

that's what you got from my post?

i have never met anyone i felt better able to make decisions for me than myself. my mind does not change about that depending on who has power.

 

[Immanuel]

you presume anyone has to justify anything to him. you can't. there is nothing to say to him or anyone else that feels what he does that would convince them or that they'd find credible... same as there is nothing that can be said to me that would change my mind on this subject.

and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.

but the radical right doesn't seem to want to do that.

I think forcing a debate on a subject like this forces people to take less than straightforward positions sometimes. I also think sometimes it doesn't matter what the answers are. People have to do what they have to do.

Hypothetical: Person A has tried for years to get pregnant. They go for in vitro and 3 embryos implant. Person A is told she cannot carry triplets to term and needs a selective termination of 2. It is not optional. Either she will die or the pregnancy will terminate or whatever results from the pregnancy will be severly damaged. Perhaps she has to be on bed rest even though the risk will remain unchanged and can't afford to.

Do you tell the woman she has to carry the triplets? (Remember, this is someone who wants a baby). Or do you accept her decision to have the selective termination.

I've raised similar hypotheticals before. I'd love an honest answer.

Seems to me like what you are saying is, "now that my side has control of the government on this matter, y'all just have to STFU." Well, you would not use the STFU, but that is what you seem to be saying. That doesn't work, because if it did this and every issue would have been settled the day the Constitution was signed. And it that were the case, abortion would be illegal in every state in the union.

Immie

Why do you say that? Obviously the founding fathers didn't care about the subject of abortion as they never addressed it nor did they count the unborn as persons.

That is right and it was illegal in almost all cases all the way up until 1973, go figure.

Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not my favorite source, but the map of where it was legal vs illegal is helpful.

Immie

 

[Zoom-boing]

no one is asking you the right and wrong of destroying a fetus. the question is when does government have the right to insert itself into a woman's body? and when do you get the right to make decisions for others?

if someone feels strongly about this issue, that's fine. but they need to keep those feelings away from anyone who isn't asking for their input.... same as with religion. everyone's entitled to their own. no one has the right to, uninvited, impose their religion on others.

and, ultimately, isn't that what we're talking about?

No, that's not what he's asking. Abortion IS legal and he knows it. His 'legal or illegal' question has been answered several times in this thread he just can't fathom that 'pro-lifers', for the most part, aren't interested in punishing the woman and he equates THAT to us not really believing that what grows inside the womb really is a person.

He is asking about the 'right or wrong' of removing said human being via those methods. The topic may have started with 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' but has turned, as it always does, into what actually grows inside of the womb. And, if he is asking about government intervention? Why would anyone bother answering him when he flat out refuses to answer questions?

you presume anyone has to justify anything to him. you can't. there is nothing to say to him or anyone else that feels what he does that would convince them or that they'd find credible... same as there is nothing that can be said to me that would change my mind on this subject.

and ultimately, that is why we all have to stay out of everyone's face on this one.

but the radical right doesn't seem to want to do that.

I think forcing a debate on a subject like this forces people to take less than straightforward positions sometimes. I also think sometimes it doesn't matter what the answers are. People have to do what they have to do.

Hypothetical: Person A has tried for years to get pregnant. They go for in vitro and 3 embryos implant. Person A is told she cannot carry triplets to term and needs a selective termination of 2. It is not optional. Either she will die or the pregnancy will terminate or whatever results from the pregnancy will be severly damaged. Perhaps she has to be on bed rest even though the risk will remain unchanged and can't afford to.

Do you tell the woman she has to carry the triplets? (Remember, this is someone who wants a baby). Or do you accept her decision to have the selective termination.

I've raised similar hypotheticals before. I'd love an honest answer.

But she DOES have that choice, because abortion IS legal, which is why that question is ridiculous! Discussing the legality of abortion is fruitless because it already IS legal. If she wants to abort (selective termination . . oh give me a break) she already has that choice and no one is saying she doesn't nor is anyone taking that away from her. That's exactly the point, nyc WANTS that to be the pro-life's pov, the pro-life's discussion. It isn't, at least not in this thread.

Discussing the human life growing inside of that woman? THAT is where the discussion is and where the discussion ALWAYS ends up, in any thread like this. Because ultimately abortion is about life and death. Roe v Wade already decided the choice part and I don't see it going anywhere.

 

[Ravi]

Seems to me like what you are saying is, "now that my side has control of the government on this matter, y'all just have to STFU." Well, you would not use the STFU, but that is what you seem to be saying. That doesn't work, because if it did this and every issue would have been settled the day the Constitution was signed. And it that were the case, abortion would be illegal in every state in the union.

Immie

Why do you say that? Obviously the founding fathers didn't care about the subject of abortion as they never addressed it nor did they count the unborn as persons.

That is right and it was illegal in almost all cases all the way up until 1973, go figure.

Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not my favorite source, but the map of where it was legal vs illegal is helpful.

Immie

Immie

Your link proves my point:

There were few laws on abortion in the United States at the time of independence, except the English common law adopted into United States law by Acts of Reception, which held abortion to be legally acceptable if occurring before quickening. James Wilson, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, explained as follows:
“ With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.[2] ” Various anti-abortion statutes began to appear in the 1820s.

 

[JBeukema]

Spousal rape was legal until 1993...

 

[jillian]

Seems to me like what you are saying is, "now that my side has control of the government on this matter, y'all just have to STFU." Well, you would not use the STFU, but that is what you seem to be saying. That doesn't work, because if it did this and every issue would have been settled the day the Constitution was signed. And it that were the case, abortion would be illegal in every state in the union.

Immie

Why do you say that? Obviously the founding fathers didn't care about the subject of abortion as they never addressed it nor did they count the unborn as persons.

That is right and it was illegal in almost all cases all the way up until 1973, go figure.

Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not my favorite source, but the map of where it was legal vs illegal is helpful.

Immie

Immie

where did you get that?

this is from your link:

There were few laws on abortion in the United States at the time of independence, except the English common law adopted into United States law by Acts of Reception, which held abortion to be legally acceptable if occurring before quickening. James Wilson, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, explained as follows:

“ With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.[2]

it was not until 1820 that states started trying to interfere.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I find it very sad that you see the first picture not as a developing human being but rather as an utterly disposable 'thing' just because it has not yet developed enough to survive on it's own outside of the womb.

is an egg a chicken? is there no distinction?

or is it just because you have a particular religious view, you think you can impose that view on everyone else?

Oh knock it off, jillian. Go find ANYWHERE in ANY abortion thread where I've EVER ONCE brought religion (mine or any other) into it. Go ahead, FIND IT, find where I'm imposing my religious view on anyone. That's really bullshit you know? I thought you above that kind of shit.

A fertilized chicken egg is a chicken in the earliest stages of life.

 

[Immanuel]

Seems to me like what you are saying is, "now that my side has control of the government on this matter, y'all just have to STFU." Well, you would not use the STFU, but that is what you seem to be saying. That doesn't work, because if it did this and every issue would have been settled the day the Constitution was signed. And it that were the case, abortion would be illegal in every state in the union.

Immie

that's what you got from my post?

i have never met anyone i felt better able to make decisions for me than myself. my mind does not change about that depending on who has power.

That is exactly what I get from your post. You state:

I think forcing a debate on a subject like this forces people to take less than straightforward positions sometimes. I also think sometimes it doesn't matter what the answers are. People have to do what they have to do.

Which says to me you don't care to allow this debate to go on. Convenient now that the tide has turned since 1973, isn't it? Did you feel the same way in 1970? Or were you right there with the rest of the crowd fighting for Norma's right to kill her offspring?

Immie