Roe V. Wade 38th Anniversary
Well, today is the 38th anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision!
So, now what do I say?
I guess when you have an anniversary you usually assess where you are, right? So, let’ see where we are.
Of course, all the pro-choicers (who are fed by the pro-choice organizations) are going bonkers because the Republicans have taken over the U.S. House of Representatives. All of the scary, red-lettered fundraising letters have gone out warning folks that ABORTION RIGHTS ARE IN DANGER! I’ve written about this before and I’ll say what I said earlier – relax folks. Just keep in mind that WHEN the House and IF the Senate passes some terrible piece of anti-abortion legislation, ain’t nothing gonna happen because ole Barack will be there to save the day with his veto pen. But, of course, national organizations need to raise money to stay in business and they need to scare you to make you write a check. So, keep everything in perspective folks (but it does not hurt to send the money in anyway).
When I think about what life was like over 38 years ago – before abortion was legal in this country – I can’t help to think about this nut ball doctor up in Philadelphia who a few days ago was indicted on several counts of MURDER for basically performing “illegal” abortions. Now, I have not had the time to look closely at the indictment and, frankly, I’ve never heard of this guy but the only thing I thought of when I heard the news was that what he was doing was just how it worked in the old days. We had all these sleazy illegal abortionists with unqualified staff, using unsterilized instruments and offering no counseling. As a result, women throughout the country were being harmed physically and, worse, dying. This guy up in Philadelphia is just an old “abortionist.” Unfortunately, it’s someone like that who makes the headline and that, of course, gives the legitimate doctors a bad rap by association.
In the grand scheme of things, I can see how certain anti-abortion folks are so totally fixated on “saving” that fetus. It’s just their thing and I am not qualified to psychoanalyze their thinking (I’ll leave that up to CG). But while these folks are seemingly mesmerized by the quest to “save babies” do they not see what might happen if abortion were made illegal again in this country? Do they not see what happened up in Philadelphia recently? Do they have absolutely no compassion for the real, live, breathing woman? I mean, they’re not all totally myopic, are they?
I think I know the answer that the pro-lifers will give me, I’ve certainly heard enough of the rhetoric over the years. But, at least at this time, 38 years later, I can breathe a sigh of relief that in 1973 the Supreme Court in 1973 was brave and smart enough to realize what they were doing. They struck a blow for woman’s health and that’s what I choose to celebrate today.
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
January 22, 2011 at 11:02 am
Well, thanks for the compliment, Pat, but my psychoanalyzing is sheer speculation and an attempt to draw out others to ponder why there is such a glaring, hideous and huge gap between what so-called “pro-lifers” claim about their care for human life and their actual level of care for it.
It boils down to three possible options: A) They’re by and large insane; B) They’re using abortion as a substitute for an issue that’s bothering them, but which is so serious they can’t address it directly; or C) It’s an enjoyable hobby.
In any option, their choice to neglect children for whose existence they are responsible is inhumane and appalling. If it is also involuntary, then C is not an option.
LikeLike
January 22, 2011 at 11:27 am
Chuckles thinks all pro-lifers are like his father, who neglected him. Why don’t you go after him directly, C; why go after him through me?
LikeLike
January 24, 2011 at 12:21 pm
A rather bizarre response! But when confronted with an unpleasant truth which demands a response, the so-called “pro-lifer” will resort to a diversionary tactic.
Perhaps this one could explain how his great relationship with his father caused him to reject the notion of meeting the needs of real children whose existence he so fervently desires.
LikeLike
January 24, 2011 at 7:07 pm
You really are getting there, Chuckles. Now they are “real children” whose existence I so fervently desire. Don’t tell me you wrote sloppily again, don’t tell me that!
LikeLike
January 25, 2011 at 7:02 am
The aborticentric evasion is noted: He alleges that paternal conflict underlies another’s insistence that he care for real children. When challenged that his disregard for real children might be explained by his satisfactory relationship with his father, he trots out one of his standard tropes.
It doesn’t get any better than this.
By “it” I mean the whole dysfunctional self-help movement which calls itself “pro-life.”
LikeLike
January 25, 2011 at 9:31 am
You didn’t have to tell me.
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 2:01 pm
i have never seen chuckles state that his father was the POS that you say he was.
but even if that were the case, he overcame it was was a loving devoted father himself, and what’s more, he put his own desires on the back burner and did it as a single dad.
pat’s mother was abusive and pat overcame that abuse and went on to be a loving devoted parent.
i really wish you would stop bringing up chuckle’s father as though having a bad parent ( if that was the case) reflects poorly on him.
how would you feel if people judged your children based on their perception of you?
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 5:06 pm
No need to push him on it, rogelio.
He’s not serious about it. He was doing a burlesque of my analysis of the so-called “pro-life” movement as being a dysfunctional self-help program for people dealing with a crippling fear of their own death. He posited my responsible attitude toward the needs of children as due to a problematic father. A neat twist!
He probably knows I recognized it for what it was, and I think it illustrates the facetiousness of his accusation that he hasn’t responded seriously to it.
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 7:18 am
Rog, Chuckles told us that his father was prolife and anti him. It’s just obvious that this led to his prolife antipathy. How else can you explain the muddled anti-prolife psychologizing he engages in?
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 4:24 pm
well, if that were true, i would probably ask him for his opinion as he would have the advantage not only of knowing his own heart and mind, but also because of the fact that he is the therapist among us.
a good rule of thumb is to defer to someone who knows what he or she is talking about.
so if we want to know about the human mind, we can ask him. if we want to know about erectile dysfunction, we can ask you.
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 6:56 am
touche
LikeLike
January 22, 2011 at 11:35 am
And this “bad old days” stuff is stale, Pat. For every young kid tortured to death back then, over ten thousand are tortured to death today. And even the aborters were much safer then. They had to be because what they were doing was illegal. Today it’s chop ’em up and ship ’em out.
LikeLike
January 23, 2011 at 11:16 am
I have to admit, John, that the “bad old days” stuff does sometimes feel a little “stale” and it did when I wrote this generally boring piece. But, if anyone else is reading this I felt the day was appropriate to remind folks.
As for abortions being “safer” in the old days, what?????? Please tell me you are joking, John. Are you seriously saying that women did not die at a higher rate from illegal abortions than legal abortions? That is an argument that I really would like you to document – not guess, but document…
LikeLike
January 23, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Don’t have time right now, but I’ll keep it in mind and get back to you
LikeLike
January 24, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Typical evasive Dunkle.
He should not be giving his opinion if he does not know the simplest of facts.
LikeLike
January 24, 2011 at 10:45 am
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
GOOD MORNING MONDAY………
Don’t have the time right now???? What @#$% is that!? You always have time when you have the facts in your hands John. The right answer would be:
– Sorry Pat, i don’t have that answer…
But of course that to “wait” an excuse word to come from you is something we will probably never see in here. But again, it is fine, coming from somebody who is a evil fruit and do not have sex anymore, there is not much we can wait from! The rage and anguish has to come out somehow.
Pat – i don’t think that saying – bad old days – was a stale at all. Actually from 1973 to today a lot of things change and women are safer when deciding what to do with their life.
There is something that is kind of intriguing. At Abortion.com, on the good old days, a lot of people would come to debate thoughts in pro or against abortion, and i notice that in here, John had the battle by himself. Weird!
Oh, before i forget to mention, if you are to create new personas to increase the number of comments, please also do change your e-mail 😉
Because when you use the same e-mail, the same figure on the top right hand side will be the same, that is how i know when people are answering themselves just to pretend to be right! BE SMART…
LikeLike
January 24, 2011 at 10:48 am
LOL – i hear you Sonia, i notice that a while ago. So instead wasting my time in posting here. I would come and read everything, but i would not make any effort in posting. Maybe now they will pay more attention!
By the way, next time i see somebody in front of my house, holding anything accusing me, i will defend myself and my family!
LikeLike
January 24, 2011 at 11:12 am
I’m confused…who is using different personas to comment and to make the thread longer? And, yes John, when you get back from todays RTL march, we look foward to your responding to the question above….
LikeLike
January 24, 2011 at 11:48 am
Malony, if you beat him up, he will then claim to be a martyr for the unborn. Better you should take an awl and let his gas tank be a martyr for the unborn. Is he really ready to sacrifice a gas tank for his principles? If so, how often?
The closer the responsibility for human life gets for them, the less sacred it becomes. Just saying….
LikeLike
January 24, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Like Sonia said, when you change the name on the space destined on this site and do not change the e-mail, just because your e-mail won’t show doesn’t mean nothing.
Just observe. The thread started by Remira in the “WORDS ARE IMPORTANT” It is clear that a good observer can get somebody is lying! Unbelievable how nobody ever notice this little things!
LikeLike
January 24, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Geeze, I don’t understand a damn thing here. Look, take another atrocity, child sex. Suppose MBLA (or whatever they call themselves) get their way and sexual relations with children become legal. Don’t you realize that one argument to make it legal will be that children and adults really suffer when it is illegal. And don’t you realize how absurd that argument will be? And, therefore, don’t you realize how absurd it is to argue that before child killing became legal people were really discomfited? So don’t ask me for the latest “scientific surveys”; just use your common sense.
LikeLike
January 25, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Is the above argument the intellectual cream of a dysfunctional self-help movement?
How can “children and adults suffer” when pederasty is illegal? It does not sound like an argument even an intelligent pederast would advance.
As for people being “discomfited” before abortion (not child killing; that’s a so-called “pro-lifer’s” binky) became legal:
7,500 per year weren’t; they were dead. Hardly in a position to continue caring for the children they already had borne.
Legalized abortion made it possible for all women to be better mothers. I am in favor of anything that makes a mother better.
LikeLike
January 25, 2011 at 6:29 pm
No, you’re not
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 7:19 am
“No, you’re not.”?????
“Am so!” “Are not!” “Am so!” “Are not!” “Am SO!!” “Are NOT!!” “Poopyhead!” “You’re the poopyhead!”
I’ve just saved a so-called “pro-lifer” his next three replies on this level. He’s not capable of saying why abortion cannot help women to be better mothers, but he does toss up the best argument he can.
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 5:09 am
How ’bout this: How can “children and adults suffer” when child killing is illegal? It does not sound like an argument even an intelligent killers’ helper, like yourself, Chuckles, would advance. But that’s what you do, don’t you?
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 8:49 am
Typical Dummy Dunkle Answer
LikeLike
January 24, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Pat, was that the question above?
LikeLike
January 25, 2011 at 9:41 am
And “the March,” Pat, “the March.” It was huge, way more than even the few media outlets that mention it say. But I and those others there were far more responsible for torturing to death five thousand people yesterday than you killers’ helpers were, and today too. Very depressing.
LikeLike
January 25, 2011 at 10:20 am
Geez, John, are you playing a violin as you’re writing this stuff? How do you know the rally was “huge”? Did you count the people?
LikeLike
January 25, 2011 at 11:55 am
All anyone has to do is look, Pat.
LikeLike
January 25, 2011 at 12:03 pm
It’s not big unless people are backed up 20 deep at the porta-potties, Pat. Count them, and you’ve counted any crowd.
LikeLike
January 25, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Depends on the number of potties.
LikeLike
January 25, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Pat,
Dunkle still has not answered your question, and he said that he would.
He is like the Blog Jester. It is funny, I think he thinks he is actually being intelligent.
LikeLike
January 25, 2011 at 1:04 pm
He can’t risk the introspection required to answer; he lacks the strength to face the threat it poses.
LikeLike
January 25, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Lord goodness
LikeLike
January 25, 2011 at 2:44 pm
That goes for both of you.
LikeLike
January 25, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Pat,
And Dunkle still does not answer the question.
Just dumb comments from Dunke ( even the name sounds like someone that cannot answer a question). If I was to name a court Jester, A Dunkle would be a good name.
Perhaps he is actually what Responsible says he may be?
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 4:57 am
How to spot an illiterate on this blog: “Dunkle still does not answer the question” (and she, or he, never repeats the question).
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 8:46 am
Geez….even I have forgotten the questions that John supposedly has not answered. But tell us, John, how did the rally go? Anything interesting? Why dont you write a summary on the blog that they created for you on this page?
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 8:49 am
good idea
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 2:04 pm
this was the question:
>>>Are you seriously saying that women did not die at a higher rate from illegal abortions than legal abortions? That is an argument that I really would like you to document – not guess, but document…<<<
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Don’t waste your time my dear. He will never answer, not with a real answer, one that makes sense, one that comes from his own mind… anyways!
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Hi Rog, where you been? I thought I’d chased you away when I asked what kind of Catholic you are. Happy to see you back.
OK, to the question: “Are you seriously saying that women did not die at a higher rate from illegal abortions than legal abortions?” Yeah, that’s what I’m saying, and I told you the reason. You’re smarter than I am, so you document it. All I can say is who has to be more careful, the illegal or the legal thief?
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 11:33 pm
jajajajaja
i never saw you pose a question to me asking what kind of catholic i am.
and even if i had seen such a question, it would hardly chase me away.
my priests and my bishop know my stance and they feel that i do things exactly how i should.
as to the question, pat asked for documentation top support your stance, so until you supply it, you still have not answered the question.
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 5:18 am
You said you were a practicing Catholic on Kate’s blog, thenotsodailyherald. I asked you if that meant you were a believing Catholic too, but, as usual, Kate didn’t post it. So I asked you the same question in (#12) above. When you didn’t respond, I was afraid I’d chased you way.
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 5:21 am
Not #12 here, #12 in the top post. Right now that post has 806 comments. Gets confusing doesn’t it.
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 10:20 am
What is the news? I don’t know the question either, but none of the pro-lifers EVER answer anything to the point… they are always vague!
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 10:52 am
How to spot another illiterate on this blog: “What is the news? I don’t know the question either, but none of the pro-lifers EVER answer anything to the point… they are always vague!”
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 11:17 am
Hi parrot! How are you today? Killing anybody today? Or you don’t do that, you just brain wash people mind and send them to do the dirty job for you!?
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 12:06 pm
The way to spot an uneducated illiterate on this site from what I have read in the last few hours is easy.
You just look for the name Dunkle as the author of the post.
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 11:20 am
Ohhh i see the word of the week is ILLITERATE
Did you just learn that this week honey!? How cute.
Rebecca, he didn’t answer and he will never answer. He doesn’t have the knowledge or the guts to do so. Unless he comes with some lame excuse and use that old book of his, like him, to relay on his absurd answers that is morte like a joke!
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 12:49 pm
birds of a feather
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Hey Rogelio, if you allow me to answer this, please!
I believe that Rogelio is the kind of catholic that thinks for himself, is proud to have a mind on his own, doesn’t get corrupted by an stupid book that was written centuries ago and changed accordingly to what each church denomination thought to be the best in their “special interests” – meaning – priests and pastors who only know how to ask for money on the services and after the service is done to share the money in between the family member. So Rogelio, thank you for being a brave human being who use the brain GOD gave it to you to think not to be manipulated.
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 3:12 pm
thank you, sonia.
you are very gracious, i’m sure.
yes, i do prefer to think for myself, and i do question things i don’t agree with or don’t understand, rather than accepting them blindly.
one of the major differences between dunkle and myself is that my value for human life doesn’t stop at the delivery room doors.
i value the lives of doctors who perform abortions and of the staff in the clinics as much as i value the lives of the unborn and of the babies that are carried to term.
unlike dunkle, i don’t applaud people who slaughter grandfathers in churches as though they are offering a human sacrifice to dios altisimo.
also, unlike dunkle, while i condemn induced abortion, i don’t condemn those who seek them or those who perform them or those who support abortion.
i separate the act from the person.
on monday at our local stand for life, there were some counter protesters from planned parenthood.
they were a bit surprised that i greeted them politely, but they returned the greeting and were very nice to me.
everything was very peaceful until one anti started getting up in the face of one of the PP people ( she was ranting about the atrocities found in philly recently)
i pointed out to the looney that every pro-choicer i know condemned that house of death and didn’t do so as a means to defend abortion. they did it because they believe that the doctor and staff and the terrible things that happened there were wrong.
i also pointed out that our protest was to be a peaceful one and that the PP folks had just as much right to be there as we did.
the police led the woman away from the area and instructed her to continue walking if she were going to stay.
jajajajaja
later, the loony started ranting at me that i must be anti-life as well, which was humorous as i had my sign saying that “i regret lost fatherhood”
but there are some people that can’t grasp the idea that i don’t have to hate a person to disagree with their stance on abortion.
dunkle is just one of them.
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 3:28 pm
oh, and on a side note, yes, i post on kate’s blog regularly.
the dynamics of that site requires that the blog owner moderate the comments.
kate is a very busy lady and she can’t be there 24 hours a day to approve posts.
she has admitted to declining allowing some of john’s comments due to the vitriol, spamminess or sheer stupidity of some of them.
she allows my comments to be posted, even when we disagree on a matter, and we often have very insightful discussions.
we might leave still not agreeing, but we have still gained insight that we didn’t have before.
so if kate declines to allow one of his comments, i can attest to the fact that she had good reason and that it was not simply because she disagrees with his stance.
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 12:26 pm
One of the main reasons why I support legal abortion is because I think it is a great advancement in women’s health. Before abortion was legal, many many women died or were harmed because of illegal, unscrupulous “abortionists”. That is a FACT that has been well documented by objective observers, including emergency room doctors. Despite this, John says that more women have been harmed under legal abortion. And, to this moment, I have seen absolutely no documentation to that argument and I know there is none forthcoming. What is pathetic to me is how some people take a position and just throw out total crap and then when we push them, we just hear mumbling. Is this how public policy should be made? Should we not make our laws based on facts???
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Here’s the question: Were women (and men, don’t forget men) better off before the law allowed them to kill young people, or not? I think to ask the question is to answer it.
You want documents? Statistics? Of course I realize, Pat, that you could come with tens of items to argue that now they’re better off, and I could come up with lots to argue that now they’re worse off.
But all that would do is serve to cloud the issue and prevent us from listening to each other.
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 3:30 pm
john, if you can come up with lots of documents, then why not do it?
i don’t think that it would prevent pat from listening to you.
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 6:41 pm
You do it for me, Rog. It would be better use of the time it took you write the rant above.
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 6:50 pm
rants
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 8:37 pm
you’re the one who made the statement, not me.
besides, i already said what i think.
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 7:03 am
You did already say what you think, but I know you can say it better. Otherwise, I would kick you out of the club.
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 4:18 pm
frankly, i have to wonder how many documents of the era before roe v wade don’t show of the harm of back alley abortions and self abortions were covered up due to a desire to protect the women and their families.
i have been reading quite a bit of late, that many doctors and midwives performed abortions and documented them as other procedures.
but since those cases were done with women of financial means, it leads me to believe that of the existing documents, those were women who were financially poor and either self aborted or went to a butcher.
but in the end, i always believe that the best way to stop abortions is by helping to change the circumstances that makes someone seek an abortion.
i also believe that as a society (not just the lifers) we should be doing these things anyway, not for the sole purpose of stopping abortions, but because it is the right thing to do.
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 6:48 pm
They brain-washed you, Rog, they brain-washed you; i.e., if you’re being honest.
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 8:43 pm
tonteria!
where is the brainwashing in my post,dunkle?
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 9:48 pm
You have swallowed so many lies, unless, of course, you’re just pretending to be pro-life.
LikeLike
January 30, 2011 at 5:14 am
what lies have i swallowed, john?
where is the brainwashing in my post?
do tell!
LikeLike
January 29, 2011 at 9:03 am
“Were women (and men, don’t forget them) better off before they were allowed to kill young people….”
The question is based on a false assumption that the fetus is a young person. I have at great lengths described what it takes to make an actual baby a person; to describe a fetus as a young person is magical thinking. Magical thinking is the first resort of the incompetent and the delusional, and is a well-known trait of the so-called “pro-life” movement.
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Well done Pat. I could not have said that any better!
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 3:10 pm
That’s for sure. that’s why I’m asking all of you to listen to someone who can articulate your position clearly. Then some day, maybe, you’ll be able to do it.
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 4:18 pm
pity you don’t follow that advice, john.
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 6:47 pm
I’m always on the look-out for another articulate pro-lifer. Here are the names of some I’ve found: Neal Horsley, Michael Bray, Peter Knight, Jim Kopp, Shelley Shannon, Joseph Ratzinger, Tom Aquinas, Ted Kennedy (before he got old), Jesse Jackson (before he got old), Rog (oops, not yet).
LikeLike
January 29, 2011 at 2:40 pm
This is the problem, John. You made a statement about illegal abortion and then, when challenged, you say you are too busy or you ask Rogie to get the documentation for you. I like serious debates based on fact. You make a comment and can’t support it. Doesn’t that make you feel a little foolish? And, if you can’t document or – God Forbid – you learn that you are wrong, why not just admit it? The problem with this country is we take positions on issues and never listen to the other side. That’s how wars start…
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Pat is right.
I agree 100%.
Dunkle is wrong, and the more I read what he writes, I think he is even worse than wrong.
LikeLike
January 29, 2011 at 6:02 pm
They have to operate that way, Pat! The reality must meet their needs if they are to successfully cope with their fear of the nothingness they see in their own death.
If reality doesn’t fit, they have to adjust it accordingly. You can post chapter and verse from the most authoritative data, and it will not move them.
They need to be heroes to a created “perfect victim” in order to live out their allegory of God rescuing them from oblivion. You can no more get one to cite the statistics than you can to get them to discuss what it takes to make a child a human being.
It’s aborticentrism, pure and simple.
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Rogelio,
Who is this John Dunkle.
Everything he writes is absurd.
There are so many intelligent people here. Why do you put up with his trash?
LikeLike
February 1, 2011 at 12:28 am
gillian, dunkle claims to be pro-life, but on his site, he praises people who murder doctors who perform abortions, as well as the staff who have been murdered.
he stalks a clinic staffer.
he spews venom at women who attempt to enter clinics, yet does not one thing to help them change the situation that makes them seek abortion to begin with.
his value for human life stops at the delivery room doors.
it’s a pity that he doesn’t channel the passion that he has into something loving and productive.
if only he did that, he could be god’s tool to help so many people.
LikeLike
February 1, 2011 at 6:50 am
Gillian, he is trying very hard to protect his psychological well-being; he a classic aborticentrist, so focused on abortion that he cannot do good. Look up aborticentrism, and you’ll see where he’s coming from. The so-called “pro-life” movement is za dysfunctional self-help program, and he’s well into it.
LikeLike
January 29, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Pat, I was annoyed by your challenge and now, with Chuckles chiming in, I am confused. Look, Chuckles, above that, wrote very clearly what this is all about (and it’s not about you find your statistics and I’ll find mine). Here’s what he wrote: “The question is based on a false assumption that the fetus is a young person. I have at great lengths described what it takes to make an actual baby a person; to describe a fetus as a young person is magical thinking…”
If the fetus is a young person, all the statistics in the world arguing that you may kill her are nonsense; if she is not a young person, relax. Who argues about whether it’s moral or not to kill chickens?
LikeLike
January 29, 2011 at 8:25 pm
May I also comment on this: “I have at great lengths described what it takes to make an actual baby a person.” No he hasn’t. He’s told us that somebody is a person when somebody else wants her. Her wishes don’t count; only her caretaker’s, or, in the case of state’s wards, caretakers’, do. Do you agree with him, Pat?
LikeLike