Stro Exits Stage Left...Not So Fast

I was going to let this one ride, but the Strother Bullins condensed version of what I said isn't right and silence implies consent, so...

"The act of abortion is killing and is justifiable only about 7% of the time."

I didn't say that. I didn't even imply it. Abortion is killing, but in the case of abortion for convenience, it is murder. In the case of rape and incest, which we discover accounts of about 4% of abortions, it is never justified. Adoption is always an alternative. Who is to say that the progeny of these acts will not find a cure for cancer or discover the road to world peace? Who are you (or who am I) to judge the worth of this human life based on its origins?

"The act of capital punishment (i.e. the killing of former embryos) is killing, but it is society protecting itself. Capital punishment shouldn't be classified as murder, though. Likewise, war results in killing, and is also society protecting itself. Killing while in the act of fighting a war (killing the enemy or by accidentally killing civilians , including mothers, expectant mothers, children, infants, etc.) shouldn't be classified as murder, either."

Pure obfuscation of my point. You attempted to equate abortion with war and capital punishment, two types of killing to which you are opposed. I guess I am baffled at how you rationalize one type of killing as allowable and another as not allowable, but leave that for now. Should we apply the same measure of acceptability to the convenience store clerk who shoots the armed robber as we do the armed robber who shoots the convenience store clerk? I doubt it. My illustration was intended to show that you were making an invalid comparison.

"Granted, if only 7% of abortions are to protect the life of the mother, something else needs to be done to stop unwanted pregnancy before it happens."

Actually, only 3% are performed to protect the health of the mother. The statistic on abortions performed to save the life of the mother are much lower. Last time I knew, it was well under 1%. In general, these are performed because neither the mother nor the child will survive the pregnancy, in the best opinion of the doctors.

"'Fornication' has been happening for a long time, Steve;"

I've been waiting for one of you to bring that up. Human reproduction and the cause of pregnancy might be one of the more well-understood processes on the planet. I recently saw a news report about a Midwestern university that was planning to eliminate the availability of chemical abortions in their campus clinics. The report featured an interview with a twenty-something who had availed herself of the service. She maintained that the availability of the service was "critical," else she would no longer be in school. Horrors. If it hadn't been for the ready availability of chemical abortions, this poor little darling might have actually had to stay off her back and keep her underwear on! Imagine the indignity! She might even have had to miss the next frat party, or barring that, she might have had to carry a condom with her. Her rights were about to be violated!

So much for your "uneducated" argument. In fact, studies worldwide have shown that there is no significant correlation between education level and the incidence of abortion. No, this is a matter of personal responsibility. That young lady at the Midwestern college wasn't walking along one day, only to have the pregnancy fairy drop an unexpected gift on her. She was well aware of the consequences of her actions but chose to ignore them. After all, she had easy access to abortion, why worry about it?

One point I forgot to make on Behethland's interesting didactic on the American Indians:

The American Indians also performed genital mutilations in the name of eugenics. They also believed in honor killings, torture-murder in the name of racial purity, and genocide. Maybe we should allow those activities as well, given their venerable history...