I just don't understand people sometimes.

Me too.

 

Well, you made a comment that this wasn't the lunatic fringe anymore, but was being funded by national pro-life groups.

What were you meaning by that?

 

It is absolutely terrorism.

Bubbler --

Honest question. If you have decided as a matter of biology life begins at conception, how do you reconcile that with a fetuses inability to live on its own?

Because I don't disagree with you, necessarily, but I also know that many pregnancies are lost very early in term, and while a fetrilized egg certainly represents the potential for life, it cannot be considered life for the purposes of law until it can exist on its own.

 

If life begins at conception, then why do the so many fertilized eggs fail? And why don't we hear more railing against fertility clinics, which "kill" millions of fertilized eggs each year?

 

Perhaps, but it's not techincally accurate. There are choices still available that don't involve abortion -- either giving the baby up for adoption or keeping him/her. And also (in most cases) taking birth control or not having sex. So in the most strict of senses, anti-choice doesn't fit.

Unless you're taking the stance that restricting ANY choice results in your being anti-choice. In which case, you'd be anti-choice if you oppose my right to club baby seals, throw bricks at elderly people's heads or pee in the sink at the baseball game.

And for what it's worth, I'm actually pretty comfortable with "anti-abortion". I'm opposed to abortion. Therefore, I'm anti-abortion. But anti-choice is a highly perjorative and loaded term, just like anti-life.

 

Exactly what I said. These people are on the front lines of the national movement -- like it or not.

In a recent state battle, the crazies were welcomed and put up in churches, until their disturbing images turned off voters and they overstepped their bounds and engaged in several physical confrontations -- including outside clinics and churches.

Like it or not, the anti-abortion movement uses the threat of physical violence in this debate. The same cannot be said of the other side. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

 

SOMEBODY in North Carolina helped hide Eric Rudolph in NC all those months. I don't see the FBI rounding people up in the Smokies.
(And, no, I don't want them to.)

 

There's a difference between "life" and "viability". Obviously a 10-week old embryo is not viable outside the womb. But my stance (I know you weren't asking me, but hell, in for a pence, in for a pound) is that once the zygote/embryo has a DNA code of its own, that makes it a distinct human being. It's in the woman's body but not a part of the woman's body, otherwise it would have the woman's DNA.

All I believe is that something with a distinct DNA code qualifies as human life and as such should be protected. I don't think it should have the right to vote or anything. Do I look like Richard Daley?

 

But that just proves my point -- once they went too far, the churches and the RTL chapters distanced themselves from them. Unless they start screening people for fringe nut tendencies (in terms of potential behavior) before letting them march, how can they control who claims to be pro-life?

VERY few people use physical intimidation to make their point in the anti-abortion forced, and they get arrested. And while that's still a higher number than that of the abortion rights' advocates, it's not near enough to say "the anti-abortion movement uses violence to move forward".

 

Fair enough. If you equate morality with religion, that is. I think "morality" and "religion" are mutually exclusive myself.

A choice that ends a human life is not one I personally find to be a choice of convenience.

I used to feel that way. The whole "I'm against abortion, but who am I to force my belief on someone else or the government" line of thinking.

Most of it was sincere, but part of it, admittedly, was to maintain consistency in my otherwise liberal beliefs, as if I wasn't "down" with the other liberals if I felt any other way.

The problem is that it's not consistent. Abortion has no grey area. The choice is to end another human beings' life. In my mind, you can't parse opinions and look the other way while believing another. It's a morality shell game.

My central way of thinking on almost any issue is that I'm cool with just about anything so long as it doesn't interfere with the lives of others. Well, abortion pretty damn much interferes with the lives of the unborn, so I couldn't morally square my earlier belief and I came around to the fact that abortion is just flat wrong -- unless the life of the mother or baby is in danger.

And I came to this belief before I had children of my own. Anyone who hasn't heard a heartbeat in the first trimester or seen the heart pulsing on an ultrasound would be hard-pressed to walk away and believe that life doesn't begin at conception. And this was way before I lost children of my own too. But both instances reinforced my earlier belief.

This doesn't mean I hate women who get abortions, the doctors who perform them or anyone else. This is a personal belief. But I do think they're making a choice that is morally wrong.

 

Another serious question, Zeke, about existing on its own - my two year old nephew could not "exist on its own" without the help of his parents. What is the difference between my nephew and a fetus? Exactly where do we draw the line of "existing on its own"?

 

They asked them to come knowing very well their methods. They were put up in churches and fed and the like.

They were asked to leave when they had an adverse affect on polling, and not a moment before. They did not leave.

And yes, when one side uses violence and THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE, that's terrorism.

I have never heard of a pro-choice bombing, but by all means, correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course, not all pro-life people encourage violence.

But the national movement benefits from it, or believes they do, or they'd have put a stop to it by now.