Brain Fertilizer

I think abortion drugs will eventually make the issue of Roe v. Wade rather moot. We’ve already demonstrated a complete inability to stop illegal drugs from entering the country, and if abortion is banned there will certainly be a market for things like RU486. Are we really going to investigate every woman who has a miscarriage for murder?

One other thing Nathan, I don’t understand this statement:

Pro-"choice" worked until people realized the only choice allowed was to have an abortion (anything else would be castigated).

Explain, please.

That statement is a conclusion I've drawn from demonstrated actions by pro-Choice organizations like NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood. Specifics:

Accounts detailed at this website.

Advocates push for and applaud forcing all New York City interns to be trained in abortions, whether they want to or not.

Abortion groups oppose 24-hour waiting periods on abortions.

Abortion groups try to block ultrasounds from being shown to women considering an abortion.

(Yes, Planned Parenthood is a pro-Choice group)

It's certainly enough to establish the validity of my argument, if not establish the actual fact. I assure you that's just scratching the surface.

Actually, despite being generally pro-Life, I advocate for the legalization of RU-486, "emergency contraception", and "morning-after dosages", because you at least have demonstrated the responsibility of taking care of it before the cell implants on the uterine wall (as I understand it).

It's a fairly arbitrary distinction from that point of view, I realize. My thinking is that you can't really stop anyone from getting an abortion. Criminal sentencing does not result in deterrence, so it's useless. So if you have to have a channel for some legal abortions, I'd prefer the abortion happen by the woman's own hand, rather than using money to entice a doctor into performing the procedure.

Actually, I think implantation is a more reasonable line than fertilization, from what I understand of the physiology of pregnancy.

I think abortion ought to be legal (for a number of reasons I don't really want to hash out here, but the fact that criminalization doesn't accomplish anything is one of them) but I also think Roe is lousy law, and that we'd do a lot better dealing with the whole question if we were forced to actually hash it out...not to mention this nutjob idea I have that the states are supposed to be dealing with these things...

Yes. Thank you. Whether you intended it or not, what you said is pretty much exactly what I think, and what I intended to say...even if I wasn't as clear as you, Deb.

Ah! I suspected I might have been repeating what you said in other words. I'm not always at my sharpest in the evenings lately. ;) Cool.

Thanks for the clarification, Nathan. While I now understand what you said, I think you should be careful not to paint all pro-choice individuals (or even organizations) with the same brush. Their platforms tend to be driven by the most radical; I suspect very few of the actual “pro-choice” rank and file would castigate a woman for having a baby.

I can also see where they are coming from in opposing 24 waiting periods (being a raging gun nut). The forced training of interns and the ultrasound thing are abominable, though.

I understand what you are saying, I think. It seems that in reacting to what I see the pro-choice leadership doing, I may inaccurately portray the thinking of the some people who support Roe v. Wade.

I've run into this before. And I have no better answer now than before.

If I vote for Bush, am I responsible for every thing he says or does from here on out? If I criticize "Democrats", am I insisting that every single Democrat everywhere has exactly the same view that I can critize?
At what point is a "rank and file" supporter able to distance themselves from a leader? At what point can I assume that if they aren't pressuring or censuring their leader for statements/actions, that they are now at least partly responsible?
When you lie down with dogs, at what point do you actually obtain the fleas you get up with?

So in this case, exactly how many conservative or moderate pro-Choice groups are there? I see NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, and the Democrat Party taking the lead, and I don't see a whole bunch of pro-choice supporters upset about that or doing much to provide any other options for someone who supports abortion as a right. As such, I think the reader should be able to assume:
I am criticizing the leaders, the spokespeople, the decision-makers, and the ones who set strategy. If you support the concept but don't support the people or actions I cite, then you should probably reconsider your advocacy, or at least the terms upon which you lend your support. At the very least, you should be able to realize that if what I'm saying doesn't apply to you, then you can probably consider yourself excluded from the criticism. If I'm not talking about you, I'm not talking about you, yanno?

That being said, I see nothing wrong with a 24-hour waiting period, waiverable under certain circumstances, for nearly anything, but guns and abortions particularly.
I'm a raging gun nut, too, and it didn't bother me or hurt me at all to wait an extra day to pick up the pistol I waited for 3 days to get delivered. Anyone who needs to shoot today either didn't plan ahead (and having to wait 24 hours is thus a good lesson for planning ahead) or quite possibly could be up to no good. ...on the other hand, when in conversations with gun-control nuts, I point out that if denied a gun, someone intent on murder would just go get a baseball bat, a bow and arrow, a frying pan, a golf club, a hammer, a car...or even just use their fists. It is the intent to murder (or lack of control over rage) that kills people, not the item they choose with which to do it.

Okay, all clear on the abortion thing (and I more or less agree with you).

As for waiting periods on guns, they mean nothing to me personally. I am well armed enough as it is for most scenarios, and when I decide to buy a gun I generally shop around for several days anyway. But waiting periods do effect non gunnies who develop an unexpected but legitimate need for a firearm RIGHT AWAY. For example, the Korean shopkeepers during the Rodney King riots, or someone who receives a death threat. I can understand why some people choose to not live with guns, and I don’t think teaching them a lesson on planning ahead is a good enough reason to deny them the ability to obtain a means of self-defense in short order. And like you say, people who premeditate murder will likely find a way to do so, waiting period or no.

Does this constitute a comments thread hijacking? If so, sorry… ;)

Not at all. Sometimes the digressions are better than the original conversation.

I was thinking of those people exactly when I said that there are some exceptions to the people who can wait.
It seems like there should be some mechanism for exceptions, like, if you need a restraining order on someone, you should also get the chance to buy a gun immediately and get an hour of gun safety training before you leave.

That doesn't help a shopowner who suddenly finds himself menaced by a gang or something, so I admit I don't have a good final answer yet. But I'm willing to discuss it! :)