Not bad…but you forgot the one about “pro-life” being about punishing women for promiscuity. 
Maybe I have not been here long enough, but what are “Chestnut arguments” exactly?
I wasn’t making something up. I do actually know some Pro-Lifer Pro-Death penalty people, and have long got the impression there were a lot of other people who agree with that.
Note #6:
**Glad to have you aboard, but it would behoove you not to make broad generalizations based on personal experience.
Hmmm. I could say something about those arguments being used in virtually every thread here, but that would be another one of your beloved ‘chestnut’ arguments, eh?
But when they are used they’re usually spotted and eviscerated. Life goes on.
When I read that the Supreme Court would not consent to hear her appeal for relief of judgement, I felt it was the right decision.
Without taking a stand on abortion one way or another, I think it’s without question that you come to the right solution in the right way. For the justices to have heard her appeal, irregardful of the outcome, would have called the appeal itself into question years from now and it still wouldn’t resolve the issue.
Just my opinion, of course.
FISH
P.S. I kind of like “irregardful.” I may have to patent it. 
If you start spouting irregardless as a real word…you qualify for the death penalty under the Ben Hicks regime…and I wouldn’t complain.
True.
[sub]Although the funky sig may provide some room for maneuver :)[/sub]
Somebody asked about it earliar and im to lazy to find a quote but anyways.
I Believe the baby in the Roe v Wade case was put up for adoption and has not made contact with the mother, don’t have a cite or anything, its just what my teacher told me when i asked him.
McCorvey said she was “used” by pro-abortion attorneys in their quest to legalize the procedure. Seeking an abortion at the age of 21, McCorvey made up a story that she had been raped. She was put in touch with two attorneys who aimed to challenge the Texas abortion statute. “Plain and simple, I was used,” she said. “I was a nobody to them. They only needed a pregnant woman to use for their case, and that is it. They cared, not about me, but only about legalizing abortion. Even after the case, I was never respected – probably because I was not an Ivy League-educated, liberal feminist like they were.”
What a crybaby!
They tried to argue that the Roe v. Wade decision deprived women of protection from dangerous abortions and exposed them to a much greater risk of being pressured into unwanted abortions.
Like giving birth isn’t dangerous?
Parker presented affidavits from more than 1,000 women who testify having an abortion has had devastating emotional, physical and psychological effects.
Having a love-child by some jerk would sure ruin my day!
Also, new scientific evidence indicated abortion is associated with more physical and psychological complications for women than were known about in 1973.
Pleeease! These are just conservative chicks with a vendetta!
While the question, “When does life begin?” was treated as an unanswered philosophical question in 1973, “an explosion of scientific evidence on human life” since then “conclusively answers the question that life begins at conception,” Parker argued.
Norma said she was used. But what is she now? She got herself splashed with some water and now is just a submissive tool for the Catholic bishops!
As for when human life begins, so what? I could not care less. You cannot tell me that I have to have Billy’s love-child because I had a fun-time sleepover with him. Puppies and kittens are cute too, but we put them to sleep or drown them in the river. Human babies are even more helpless, and you could hardly call their constant crying a rational language. Keep abortion legal. There are already too many restrictions upon us. It makes no sense to say we can kill a fetus but as soon as it pops its head out, it is murder. Forget it! Legalize infanticide and let’s have done with it!
(my emphasis)
Props for honesty I guess.
From her homepage
and
Radical Feminism…it’s whats for breakfast!
Ya know, for a former carnival worker that had already adopted out a couple of babies, that third pregnancy ol’ Norma wanted to end was more about stupidity than lying.
Also, there was a Texas Monthly article about her about 12 years back. She’d been, at various times, a lesbian, an ardent feminist, an abortion clinic worker, the girlfriend of a national anti-abortion group leader, a “holy-roller” Christian, and now, a Catholic.
The article (for which I searched, but could not access) was as kind as possible, but basically stated that she was easily influenced and easily led, and that Weddington had invested major amounts of personal funds in keeping her sheltered, clothed, sane and alive at various times for a number of years.
I remember her radical lesbian phase from attending a pro-choice rally at which she spoke. She’s become much more eloquent over time, as her education level at the time Ms. Weddinton started helping her was abysma
And for the gentleman that felt it was necessary to debunk the spectre of deaths from back-alley abortions…how many are necessary to be significant? Twenty a year? A hundred? A thousand? Or maybe just one? Your sister, or mine?
Here I deleted a lot of personal/family information that basically boils down to this: Let him who is without sin (ANY SIN) cast the first stone. When YOU are able to conceive a child, then it is your decision about what to do with your body.
Norma NcCovey changed her mind when she could no longer get pregnant. And this is a decision between a woman (and her partner, assuming that he’s involved enough to care) and her physician. Just as I would not presume to introject my beliefs into another persons medical care, I would expect others to have the same courtesy for everyone else.
I need to learn to proofread better or clean my glasses more often…
So much for the almighty power of “choice,” then.
Beagledave, from what I’ve seen of Liberationsuzie she’s a whack-job even by my far left wing lights. Her site is not representative of the pro-choice movement. That stuff is kind of our equivilent of radcal pro-life sites that put out “wanted” style mug shots of abortion doctors and cross out the murdered ones with X’s.
You know where I stand on the abortion issue but even I would disavow myself of the sentiments expressed on that site.
My understanding of pre-Roe v. Wade abortion laws is that many women from no abortion states traveled to states where abortion was legal, in order to get abortions. Abortion therefore might be said to affect interstate commerce because it brings business to other states, using highways, railways, hotels/motels, gas stations, restaurants.
Interstate commerce is a Federal question and therefore it’s appropriate for the Supreme Court to rule thereupon.
Regulating “interstate commerce” is within the constitutional purview of Congress, not the Supreme Court. See Article I, section 8.
Due Process, however, is undeniably a matter for the courts. Hence, Roe.
Abortion is very commercial. Given these difficult times, we should be supporting such a fruitful ministry. Indeed, economic analysists admit that if abortion was properly considered a business, it would rank within the Fortune 500 Listing.
A few years ago, Prell Shampoo got in trouble because of “animal protein” in their product. The animal rights activists got involved and then pulled back when they found out that the “animal protein” was human and fetal. Okay, then the anti-abortionists got into the act and they had to change the formula. I might cut my hair close to the skin, but I was going to grow my hair back just so I could use the product. They lost business when they capitulated to the anti-choice forces.
A clinic with which I was associated used to make quite a bit of money with abortions. It gave us the lifestyle we always wanted and had a right to-- is this not the land of opportunity? Anyway, we made money coming and going. We got seed money from Planned Parenthood and made big bucks from the women who came to us.
Clinics also make money with the byproduct. Unless there is saline contamination, and even then there are things that can be done, the various remains can be sold to research labs. There is even a catalogue that charges different prices for fetal parts at various stages of development. You can get rich from this alone. It is not considered a human with rights, so it does not matter.
So remember, keeping abortion legal means “mo money, mo money!”
Coincidentally, partial birth abortion (really infanticide–hehe) means early retirement and a life of the rich and famous!
Susie
Susie, you are just so–outrageous! Wow, never has this board seen the likes of you! I am stunned!
Gosh! Gasp! Gee-willikers! :rolleyes:
I’m starting to think that liberationsusie is really a pro-lifer posing as a cartoon caricature of an extreme feminist in an effort to shock everyone and make us think that all those pro-choicers must be crazy.