Quote:Even roe v. wade recognizes that circumstances can exist where the state has a compelling interest in the protection of an unborn child.  Recognizing the right of the unborn to exist is not going to spark a fascist armageddon or spike sales in clothes hangers.  

 

I don't pretend to have a J.D. from Harvard, so I'm not even going to pretend to know what you mean by that comment (along with the others which appear inside the body of my post - in the future, format it better for people of limited intelligence, like me, to understand). I keep my arguments simple and to the point. Point being, if you want to criminalize doctors providing abortions and women who will have to find other means to provide them, and who surely will (you mean abortions existed prior to 1973?! Ya don't say!), then you have to come up with a framework to police the "crime". If the zygote, or embryo, or fully-fledged and functioning person, or whatever terms you want to describe them, is the main concern, then bless your heart and go the extra mile and address all ways the atrocity can be enacted, including condoms. It's up to those proposing it to actually come up with a system that works. So stop using big words and go do it. Or just take yourself down to Massachusetts Avenue and throw around more legal arguments. Don't matter to me.

---