response 126 of 187:

Apr 6 13:24 UTC 2002

Re 122:  Oops.

Re 124:  Abortion was certainly frequent during the years when it was 
illegal.  I think this time around the level of law breaking would be 
much greater.  Illegalizing drugs doesn't work well because there is a 
large and strong demand for them.  The war on drugs is such a farce 
because while America's government spends millions on catching and 
punishing drug dealers, American consumers simultaneously offer 
millions to those who will break the law to deliver drugs to them.  
Simply illegalizing something that lots of people badly want does not 
work.  And there isn't any major pro-drug political force tending to 
legitimize drug use the way there is for abortion, nor is there a 
recent history of drugs being legal.

response 128 of 187:

Apr 6 15:18 UTC 2002

re:  curlie "the fetus is not a recorded human  being"  That's interesting.
So, I guess that until a birth certificate has been processed by the state
you think it is o.k. to kill the baby.

re:  "citizens have to be born in the  United States, or naturalized"  Are
not children born to US citizens living in foreign countries automatically
US citizens?

re:  "Illegalizing (sic) drugs doesn't work well because there is a  large
and strong demand for them."  I suppose the same would go for "illegalizing"
murder.  If one person kills somebody, you have to let anyone do it.

response 130 of 187:

Apr 6 17:47 UTC 2002

Making abortion illegal would probably reduce the number of abortions
slightly, and also increase the number of illegal and frequently botched
abortions and therefore the number of adult deaths.
Making alcohol illegal reduced the amount of alcohol consumed (with a drop
in number of people killed by cars) but increased the amount of crime.  Making
nicotine illegal would greatly reduce the number of people smoking in public
places but might also increase crime (smuggling).  A hundred years ago heroin
and marijuana were legal but not very widespread.  Supposedly soldiers picked
up the habits in Vietnam (and the smoking habit in WWI - I think the army
issued free fixes).

response 132 of 187:

Apr 6 18:20 UTC 2002

        I don't think most pro-lifers are really trying to consciously control
other people's sex lives.  At least that isn't the impression that I've
gotten from talking to those of them enlightened enough to debate with
someone of the opposite viewpoint.

        There is some overlap between pro-lifers and people who are against
public sex education, and some overlap between pro-choicers and people who
advocate widespread public sex education.  But it's not fair to assume that
because people fall into one camp on one issue, that they fall into another
camp on the second.

response 134 of 187:

Apr 6 20:59 UTC 2002

Illegalizing murder works because the overwhelming majority of people 
believe murder should be prevented and punished in the most severe way 
possible.  This is obviously not the case for abortion.

So you really think a law against abortion will stop abortion?  Do you 
also think a law against guns will cause most gun owners to troop over 
to the police department to turn in their guns?  I'm astonished.

response 136 of 187:

Apr 6 22:23 UTC 2002

        Hate to tell you, but that's considered "implying".

response 138 of 187:

Apr 6 22:25 UTC 2002

        Are you sure about that?  I can think of a couple of people that the
species could benefit from being without.

response 140 of 187:

Apr 7 02:43 UTC 2002

Re 130.  Yes, Prohibition did indeed reduce the amount of alcohol
consumed, and I believe there were significant drops in deaths from
various drinking-related diseases such as cirrhosis of the liver.

Arguably Prohibition made the country healthier, but it also made it
considerably more violent.  When Prohibition was repealed in 1933, the
nation's homicide death rate (the best long-term crime index) fell from
year to year to year for eleven straight years -- the largest sustained
decrease in crime in American history. 

However, I'm very, very skeptical about the notion that Prohibition
reduced automobile traffic deaths.

In New York City, for example, the all-time peak year for traffic deaths
was 1929 (1300 that year compared to about 500/year now).  Cars in the
1920s had high centers of gravity (were easily tipped), had a poorly
protected gas tank right under the driver's seat, and generally had none
of the safety features we take for granted today.  Cars also had to
contend with horsedrawn vehicles, streetcars, pushcarts, and more
pedestrian traffic (per mile of city street).  And to varying extents,
every driver was a beginner.

response 142 of 187:

Apr 7 04:05 UTC 2002

I'm another who thinks abortion is murder.  I don't want to control 
anyone's sex life.  I think most people who hate abortion just hate 
abortion.  There are some people who hate abortion because they hate 
sex, but I think they're a fringe group, not the center of the anti-
abortion argument.

re #141: If the Supreme Court changes it's opinion, and decides 
abortion is unconstitutional, doesn't your argument obligate you to 
change your view?

response 144 of 187:

Apr 7 09:18 UTC 2002

re#143: Since slavery was legal prior to 1865 does that make it
right then?  Are blacks today to be denied reparations for events
that occured when slavery was legal?  I agree with most of what you 
say in your second para. 

response 146 of 187:

Apr 7 14:45 UTC 2002

Re #128:  You're assuming your conclusion.  A zygote or embryo is NOT
a baby, and neither are early fetuses.  Babies can live on air and milk
and attention, and precious little else.  An embryo or early fetus cannot
even breathe or eat (the lungs are a solid mass for several months).  The
two are demonstrably not the same.  From this it follows that what is
aborted is almost never a baby (almost never = a few times a year).

Embryos and fetuses also require a far more intimate connection to a
particular person than a baby.  People have a right to refuse this.

Kerry, I'll bet that your perception of yourself as "in the midstream"
means that you're seldom exposed to contrary viewpoints or confounding
data.  Here's a fact for you:  Somewhere between half and three-quarters
of all unions of sperm and ovum do NOT lead to a live birth; one study a
few years ago found that the ova of healthy, sexually active young women
using no birth control were fertilized 90% of the time, but led to births
only 30% of the time.  That's a 2/3 loss rate.  If you're religious, it's
obvious that God doesn't care about those "babies".  Why should you?

Most of the lost "babies" fail to implant and die as blastocysts, passing
with the menstrual flow.  To be consistent with their professed beliefs
the Right-To-Lifers would have to perform a funeral ceremony over every
tampon.  They don't, which makes them hypocrites.  I don't know about the
Jewish tradition, but the Christian gospels have harsh words for hypocrites.

Even more confounding question:  If abortion is "murder", are you willing
to test every fertile female every month to see if she's become pregnant,
and start a murder investigation if she suddenly isn't any more?  Without
such an intrusion, you have no way of proving that the "victim" existed.
Then you have to prove that the demise wasn't one of the 50% to 75% which
are natural.  In your world, the police would have no time to do anything
else!  That sounds like a pretty good description of hell to me, and I
won't go there.  You can take your busybody urges and shove them.

By the way, it's YOU who is part of the "culture of death".  You're part of
a movement which assumes a huge number of deaths in order to have a reason
to exist.  A large fraction of society uses reason instead of your dogma,
doesn't believe your claims of "deaths", and has opted out of your culture.

response 148 of 187:

Apr 7 19:13 UTC 2002

#147, last five words: <insert standard argument here>
 
there, I just saved us forty posts. ;}
 
#144> There's a difference between legality and morality. The question I was
answering was, "Is abortion murder?" Answer: No. "Murder" has a legal
definition, not a moral one: Illegally killing someone. Since abortion can
be done legally, it's not in and of itself murder. 
 
Now, if your question is, "Is abortion moral?", that has a much longer answer.
 
Sidebar: There is not a way to provide proper reparations for blacks, today,
for something that ended a century and a half ago, that does not benefit
people who don't deserve to benefit, or punish people who don't deserve
punishment.