response 79 of 404:

Oct 19 16:25 UTC 1998

ain't it fun, John? =}
;}

response 81 of 404:

Oct 19 19:19 UTC 1998

After I calmed down from my hissy fit =} I realized one of the problems with
the way that the abortion issue has turned out in this country: too many
people are living in a black-and-white world. When saying what I said about
Jiffer not being a "pro-lifer," I could hear the criticism, "So, what, does
that make her a pro-choicer?"

IT's become too much of an us-and-them issue, in an us-and-them culture.
"You're either part of the solution, or part of the problem." Durham. Frankly,
I think most people are in the gray middle somewhere on most issues, including
abortion and gay rights.

response 83 of 404:

Oct 20 02:35 UTC 1998

the fundamental problem in the abortion issue is that participants in both
sides refuse to accept that the other side has a logical and well thought out
viewpoint.  They think they're repressive pigs on one side and holocaustal
murderers on the other.  Which is why I have never and will never declare my
standpoint on the issue.  It's disgusting.

response 85 of 404:

Oct 20 03:32 UTC 1998

I'm a fairly ardent pro-choicer. I think that the pro-life stance has some
reasonable, well-thought-out arguments. I don't even disagree with all of
them. Nobody I know thinks abortion is a wonderful thing.

The point is, when two opposing groups have reasonable and well-thought-out
viewpoints, we must rely on the courts to decide which route to take. The
courts decided which route, in Roe v Wade. 

I have made and continue to make a distinction between people who oppose
abortion and "pro-lifers." The pro-lifers are the ones using coersion, force,
and extortion to block people from going into clinics, etc. *They* are
repressive pigs. 

People who oppose abortion? Well, that depends on how strongly one takes the
word "oppose." Nearly everyone I know, and has ever met, agrees that abortion
is a tragedy. I certainly do. 

But mature individuals don't turn to guerilla tactics when the reasonable
opinion of the courts don't go their way. They try to change the opinion of
the courts, which is what the reasonable people who oppose abortion as a
viable choice for anyone do.

response 87 of 404:

Oct 20 05:10 UTC 1998

Um, maybe the ACLU's agenda has to do with civil liberties?

Un-identifiable bodies are found pretty often.   If by some mischance
you or a family member died under such circumstances, would it please
you to know that the government would hand the unknown body over for a
nice Hindu burial?  The normal procedure is a nice respectful
non-sectarian burial (with the option of a religious reburial if your
family ever finds you).

I would consider it very improper for any governmental authority to be
handing unidentified bodies over to some religious group for sectarian
burial, and I would consider doing so a violation of church and state
seperation.  A very appropriate case for the ACLU.

Of course, there are some who would argue that these particular bodies
are not bodies at all, but medical waste, which is a whole other can of
worms.

I also tend to wonder about the motives of this church.  I've never
before heard of any Christian church stepping forward to offer to give
unidentified bodies a "Christian burial".  Most christian churches are
reluctant to give religous burials to people whose religion is unknown. 
Could it be that some religious group was trying to make a media event
out of burying the poor aborted fetuses?

response 89 of 404:

Oct 20 10:47 UTC 1998

If we eventually discover a gay "gene," would it be okay for a
woman to abort a pregnancy because she'd found out the child
had the "gay" gene?

response 91 of 404:

Oct 20 14:16 UTC 1998

But I didn't hear it here first, Michael.
It's illegal in at least one country to abort a fetus on the basis of gender,
because people were doing exactly that (one of the Asian countries, I believe,
where females aren't valued as much as males, so mothers would want to clear
the reproductive system of that nasty female fetus to make room for a
wonderful male one).

The general term for this is eugenics: Deliberately manipulating the genetic
make-up of the child pre-natally, and discarding "mistakes."

I agree that it's a touchy issue. I understand, further, that mothers *are*
given the option to abort in some birth defect cases... I'm not sure if it's
just the fairly obvious ones (Siamese twins, for instance), or how advanced
the testing is.

This is precisely the argument I've made against arguing so hard taht sexual
orientation is entirely genetic. You suggest that liberal groups will demand
that "non-PC" abortions (or eugenic abortions) be made illegal; I fear
precisely the opposite, that the religious right, normally opposed to
abortion, will freely recommend abortion when a "bad" gene is found... the
gay gene, the alcoholic gene, the bleeding heart liberal gene.

I think that there is a significant risk of both things happening... extremist
"bleeding heart" liberals suing expectant mothers to keep them from aborting
an undesirable fetus, and extremist "religious right" conservatives
encouraging expectant mothers to abort it. And I don't see a clear way for
the law to handle it, other than to step in and say, "All right, then, NOBODY
gets an abortion," which (for me) isn't a desirable result at all.

As to the other question> We start as one cell. We come out as infants.
Depending on the contexts, it's theoretically possible to abort anytime during
the pregnancy. The vast majority of abortions occur during the first
trimester, and most (if not all) states have laws prohibiting third trimester,
and sometimes second trimester, abortions, frequently excepting cases where
the mother's life is at risk, or the baby is going to die anyway. So, yes,
most aborted fetuses are barely recognizable as human, if at all. A very few
are very recognizable as human.

response 93 of 404:

Oct 20 15:40 UTC 1998

 re #86:  "What actually IS the agenda of the ACLU?"

 Perhaps they don't like the idea of aborted fetuses being turned into
 a political gimmick.

response 95 of 404:

Oct 20 16:08 UTC 1998

In my opinion, if you're going to support abortion at the woman's
choice, then that's what you have to support, even if the woman's
actual motives are repugnant to you.  Suppose a woman chooses
to have an abortion solely because the child, if it had been born,
would have been the heir to a fortune that will all go to her if the
child is not born?  As despicable as that sounds, you must give the
woman that choice if you want to be pro-choice.  

response 97 of 404:

Oct 20 20:03 UTC 1998

Right. Amendment 14 specifies *birth* - not conception - in the U.S. as a
qualification for citizenship.

Contrary to brighn, however, I can't imaging most Christian churches favoring
abortion even in the case of a 'gay' gene, which I would think that they
continue to deny anyway even in the face of hard scientific evidence. Even
if they accept the presence of such a gene, I think the recommendation would
instead be to have the child and force "treatments" upon it something to the
effect of institutionalization or cloistering.

response 99 of 404:

Oct 21 01:33 UTC 1998

If I said "most Christian churches," I misspoke. I can't believe I said that,
and don't believe I did.
I think there may be a small number of fringe ultra-conservative churches that
would sanction and even encourage aborted "gay" babies.

*Most* Christian churches currently hold that stance that homosexuality is
a sin, but so are a lot of other things, and Jesus loves people despite their
sins, because everyone is a sinner.

You can actually get confirmation of that last claim on our very own beloved
www.godhatesfags.com, where Rev. Phelps rants at the Christian churches who
dare to teach that Jesus loves everyone, and represents himself as being in
the tiny minority of right-thinking people who are willing to preach fire and
brimstone.

response 101 of 404:

Oct 21 02:21 UTC 1998

"The "agenda" of the ACLU is to preserve the rights of the people under
 the Bill of Rights," for example by enabling the mentally ill to live
squalidly on the streets rather than allowing society to care for
them in a humane manner.