Abortion battle looming?

[Cancel8]

"a decision earlier this month from the European Court of Human Rights in the Case of A, B, and C v. Ireland, promised to be of more than routine interest. A challenge to the Irish law brought by three women asserting rights under the European Convention, it held the potential to express a Continent-wide consensus that abortion rights are human rights.

Indeed, the initial news reports in this country, at least in headlines, indicated that this is what had happened. The European court awarded 15,000 euros, about $20,000, to Plaintiff C, a cancer patient who feared that her life was at risk from an unintended pregnancy and who, like Plaintiffs A and B and thousands of other Irish women every year, had to leave the country to obtain an abortion...

But a closer reading of the 40,000-word decision tells a different story. The Strasbourg, France, court — which 30 years ago interpreted the Convention to protect gay rights — actually made clear that it was not recognizing a right to abortion...

On behalf of Plaintiff C, who could not find an Irish doctor willing to help her even assess her risks, it was simply telling Ireland that if the country chose to offer a life-saving exception to its abortion ban, it had to give women “an accessible and effective procedure” to demonstrate that they qualified...

...Joe Pitts, a Pennsylvania Republican, will be in charge of a House subcommittee with jurisdiction over many abortion-relevant subjects, including private health insurance, Medicaid, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health...

He is one of the leading opponents of abortion on Capitol Hill and was put forward for his new position by the National Right to Life Committee...

...States are moving to ban abortion even before fetal viability, a direct challenge to existing Supreme Court precedent...

...Nearly a quarter of all pregnancies end in abortion; put another way, nearly half of all pregnancies are unintended, and of those, 40 percent are terminated. One out of every three American women will have an abortion by the age of 45.

And if they can’t get the care they seek at home, where will they go?..."

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/abortion-takes-flight/?partner=rss&emc=rss

 

[Good Luck]

I just love the hypocrisy of the liberals, calling abortion a "human right", which completely ignores the scientific fact that the unborn are human.

The liberal philosophy, led in the U.S. by the democratic party: human rights only belong to those humans we agree deserve them.

But at least it is consistent with their history of supporting slavery and opposing civil rights laws. (Until they saw minorities as a way to power - then all of a sudden they are our FRIENDS. - fucking hypocrites.)

 

[Onceler]

I just love the hypocrisy of the liberals, calling abortion a "human right", which completely ignores the scientific fact that the unborn are human.

The liberal philosophy, led in the U.S. by the democratic party: human rights only belong to those humans we agree deserve them.

But at least it is consistent with their history of supporting slavery and opposing civil rights laws. (Until they saw minorities as a way to power - then all of a sudden they are our FRIENDS. - fucking hypocrites.)

There is nothing hypocritical about recognizing that the mother has rights, as well, and weighing some complex considerations in balancing the rights of one against the rights of another.

 

[Cancel8]

..."Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is the co-founder of the Tea Party advocacy group called "Liberty Central," and she was until recently on the Tea Party lecture circuit. Mrs. Thomas is just a private citizen, of course, but many have begun to wonder: does the Supreme Court now have a Tea Party agenda as well?"...


http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2010/12/30/a-tea-party-supreme-court/

 

[Good Luck]

There is nothing hypocritical about recognizing that the mother has rights, as well, and weighing some complex considerations in balancing the rights of one against the rights of another.

Bullshit you lying sack of thereof.

What right trumps the basic, once defined as "inalienable", right to LIFE?

What is the percentage of abortions performed that would otherwise end in the mother's death?

 

[Onceler]

Bullshit you lying sack of thereof.

What right trumps the basic, once defined as "inalienable", right to LIFE?

What is the percentage of abortions performed that would otherwise end in the mother's death?

Typical black & white, emotional argument.

It's a very complex issue. Issues such as sentience, viability & development all come into play. I know you'll be dismissive of these, but it is what it is.

It's interesting that you think taking such complexity into consideration is "hypocritical," but you have no issues advocating freedom & liberty on other topics, while also (I'm assuming) supporting a state where a woman is forced to carry a fetus to term in her body.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Typical black & white, emotional argument.

It's a very complex issue. Issues such as sentience, viability & development all come into play. I know you'll be dismissive of these, but it is what it is.

It's interesting that you think taking such complexity into consideration is "hypocritical," but you have no issues advocating freedom & liberty on other topics, while also (I'm assuming) supporting a state where a woman is forced to carry a fetus to term in her body.

what about forcing parents to give medical treatment to their children?

 

[Good Luck]

Typical black & white, emotional argument.

It's a very complex issue. Issues such as sentience, viability & development all come into play. I know you'll be dismissive of these, but it is what it is.

Yes it is what it is: the hypocrisy of defining WHICH humans "deserve" human rights based on your "complex" yardsticks.

I am in favor of removing the freedoms of individuals, when it is necessary. Such as those of criminals via due process (but ONLY through due process). Is my willingness to remove their freedoms "hypocrisy"?

I am also willing to save a human LIFE, even if it means a temporary diminishment of another's liberty, because I recognize the basic fact that life trumps other rights. And this is far more than just protection against the POSSIBILITY of death, such as goes on with things like airport security or DUI checkpoints. Where a death is merely a possibility, especially with a relatively low probability, then liberty becomes the priority.

But with abortion, the probability of death for the unborn is 100%. That is not just a POSSIBLE death, it is a guaranteed death DIRECTLY CAUSED by the actions of another "exercising" their "rights". I ask again: since when does any other right trump the right to life? Skating that answer with the "well, these humans aren't DESERVING of life because we say so according to our egocentric yardsticks" does not answer that question.

Name ONE other instance, other than self defense, where the killing of another human is part of one's "rights"?

 

[Onceler]

what about forcing parents to give medical treatment to their children?

Not a terrible question, but not an apples to apples either. My main issue w/ abortion, or outlawing it, is that we're talking about the interests of the fetus having a right to develop vs. the right of the mother to decide what to do with her own body. Since we're talking about the use of another body, I personally weigh that more heavily than, say, the right of parents to simply make a decision. While the latter is important with regard to children, it's not the same as your right over the physical use of your body.

But I don't want to be dismissive of the rights of parents to decide for their children, either. Not to sound like a politician, but I just haven't given that one as much thought, since it's not something that seems to come up a lot (at least in the news); I don't even really know what the current legislation is like surrounding that issue. When I do hear about a child dying or something because their parents refused medical care on some religious grounds or something along those lines, I'm not supportive of that. If there was an effort to over-ride that kind of decision, I'd probably support it...

 

[apple0154]

Bullshit you lying sack of thereof.

What right trumps the basic, once defined as "inalienable", right to LIFE?

What is the percentage of abortions performed that would otherwise end in the mother's death?

Nobody is denying the fetus the right to life.

Insisting one has the right to use another persons body against their wishes, including their internal organs, makes "regular" slavery pale in comparison.

As for women's deaths one is too many. And then there's "damage".

As I've asked before, "What is a fetus worth vis-a-vis damage?" Loss of a limb due to circulation problems brought on by uncontrolled Gestational Diabetes? A foot? A toe?

What about loss of vision? A stroke? Kidney damage? What about liver damage?

Would it OK to say a fetus is a human being and has a right to life but a woman may kill it to prevent kidney damage?

Then there's high blood pressure brought on by pregnancy.

How far up the hypocritical ladder do anti-abortionists crawl? If there is a possibility a woman may suffer kidney damage due to uncontrolled high blood pressure is killing an innocent human being, a fetus, OK? Murder as a precaution?

Of course, there's always the self-defense argument. Because hypocrisy knows no bounds when it comes to anti-abortionists they believe if the mother's life is in danger and the danger can be removed by killing the little human then it's OK to kill it. The same argument can be used to kill a pharmacist who refuses to give a woman life saving medicine if she can't afford it. Self defense. Kill the pharmacist and the woman has access to the insulin.

But those exceptions are so few, the anti-abortionists tell us. If that's the case why should the innocent human being, the fetus, lose it's life rather than the women suffer the injuries?

I think we all know the answer to that one, don't we? For those who are unsure the answer is women will suffer injuries because, after all, who can say for 100% she will suffer injuries? It will be a wait-and-see scenario because some people believe every case should be treated individually. In other words the doctor will make the decision and we all know how doctors disagree.

Some women will suffer injuries and, yes, some women will die or end up incapacitated to a degree they will have no quality of life. No job. And we also all know that the people who oppose abortion are generally the ones who oppose government programs which help the poor.

So, the woman ends up in poverty, dealing with her injuries, while little Johnny or Mary grows up in poverty dealing with rejection and bullying.

But it's all for the good, they tell us.

Yea, right.

 

[Good Luck]

Is it OK for me to murder someone as a precaution to the possibility they may break into my house because they are a known criminal?

Didn't think so.


So why all the justifications based on what POSSIBLY could happen? If we were to start allowing homicides base on unsubstantiated possibilities, few would live to tell the tale. Nothing more than the usual blind defense strategy. (note the use of the term "fetus", scientifically accurate, but an emotionally deliberate diminishment of the unborn's humanity.)

Now SUBSTANTIATED PROBABILITY of life-threatening complications is a different matter. There are those cases where the mother's life is in genuine danger from trying to carry a child to term. Now we are talking about the right to life vs. the right to life. Then, and only then, should a mother have the choice to risk her life or kill the other human who is threatening her life. And, no, sorry, but QUALITY of life does not count. A person can survive, and live a relatively normal life with missing toes or a damaged kidney. (not to mention kidneys can be replaced these days.) Injury is recoverable. Death is not.

 

[Onceler]

Is it OK for me to murder someone as a precaution to the possibility they may break into my house because they are a known criminal?

Didn't think so.


So why all the justifications based on what POSSIBLY could happen? If we were to start allowing homicides base on unsubstantiated possibilities, few would live to tell the tale. Nothing more than the usual blind defense strategy. (note the use of the term "fetus", scientifically accurate, but an emotionally deliberate diminishment of the unborn's humanity.)

Now SUBSTANTIATED PROBABILITY of life-threatening complications is a different matter. There are those cases where the mother's life is in genuine danger from trying to carry a child to term. Now we are talking about the right to life vs. the right to life. Then, and only then, should a mother have the choice to risk her life or kill the other human who is threatening her life. And, no, sorry, but QUALITY of life does not count. A person can survive, and live a relatively normal life with missing toes or a damaged kidney. (not to mention kidneys can be replaced these days.) Injury is recoverable. Death is not.

You're asking some good questions, though not perfect, and they deserve better answers than I can give at the moment (have to head out, and didn't want you to think I was bailing).

You're going along a life vs. life, death vs. death line of thinking, but that's not my contention. That's why the issue is complex; yes, the mother's life isn't in danger (in most cases), but the mother's body is also needed for full development. That's not something that can be given without permission, imo, and just having sex isn't giving permission.

There are all kinds of hypotheticals laid out in theorizing about abortion along the lines of "okay, if I came into your room in the middle of the night, and attached a fetus or even another fully developed human to you, that would die if it was then separated...would you be obligated to carry around that fetus/human?" Things like that - they seem ridiculous, but the basic principle is to get you to think about the obligations & the weighing of one life against another in that respect, and not just a death vs. death comparison.

I'll try to give this a little more time later....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

QUOTE=Onceler;749775]Not a terrible question, but not an apples to apples either. My main issue w/ abortion, or outlawing it, is that we're talking about the interests of the fetus having a right to develop vs. the right of the mother to decide what to do with her own body. Since we're talking about the use of another body, I personally weigh that more heavily than, say, the right of parents to simply make a decision. While the latter is important with regard to children, it's not the same as your right over the physical use of your body.

true, not apples to apples, i was just curious of the aspect wherein we as society can force our citizens to take a certain course of action in order to save a life. different than the more prohibitive conduct which forms the basis of our criminal justice system.

while i have not rested my thoughts as to whether a fetus is indeed a human being, i've seen good arguments on both sides, i am interested in why states can convict you of murder (i know that abortion rights groups believe these decisions/laws are a back door attempt at reversing roe) which requires the fetus to be declared a human being, force you to submit your child to medical care, despite your religious beliefs or whatever beliefs, and yet the state allows the woman to ultimately make the choice on whether the fetus ever sees the light of day. the husband, whom one could argue "owns" a one half interest in the fetus as half the dna is his, has no say. now, it is not his body bringing the child to term, however, in situations where the woman was a willingly participant, how is it moral to take away the choice of the husband to see the child to term? both parties understood the bargain or risk, yet only one party gets to make the choice whether the fetus is allowed to develop into a human being that does not require its mother's womb.

But I don't want to be dismissive of the rights of parents to decide for their children, either. Not to sound like a politician, but I just haven't given that one as much thought, since it's not something that seems to come up a lot (at least in the news); I don't even really know what the current legislation is like surrounding that issue. When I do hear about a child dying or something because their parents refused medical care on some religious grounds or something along those lines, I'm not supportive of that. If there was an effort to over-ride that kind of decision, I'd probably support it...

states are all over the place on this issue

 

[Good Luck]

You're asking some good questions, though not perfect, and they deserve better answers than I can give at the moment (have to head out, and didn't want you to think I was bailing).

You're going along a life vs. life, death vs. death line of thinking, but that's not my contention. That's why the issue is complex; yes, the mother's life isn't in danger (in most cases), but the mother's body is also needed for full development. That's not something that can be given without permission, imo, and just having sex isn't giving permission.

There are all kinds of hypotheticals laid out in theorizing about abortion along the lines of "okay, if I came into your room in the middle of the night, and attached a fetus or even another fully developed human to you, that would die if it was then separated...would you be obligated to carry around that fetus/human?" Things like that - they seem ridiculous, but the basic principle is to get you to think about the obligations & the weighing of one life against another in that respect, and not just a death vs. death comparison.

I'll try to give this a little more time later....

Why should there be more involved that the basic right to life vs. other rights? Any other objection still comes down to that, because all the "woman's body used against her will" still boils down to the basic fact that pregnancy is temporary, while death is permanent. Therefore, life still trumps as the more basic right. All other justifications for legalized abortion come down to the same problem. Developmental level is temporary, death is permanent. Inconvenience is temporary, death is permanent. etc. etc. etc.

And sorry to disagree, but yes, consensual sex IS implied permission for any resulting unborn child. The claim otherwise is an argument that people should not be responsible for their decisions. Any person in our society who is old enough to worry about unplanned pregnancy KNOWS that to engage in sexual intercourse has the associated risk of pregnancy. We know this to be true even when using birth control, since no method of BC is 100% effective - especially when human error is added into the mix. We hammer away at that fact in basic sex education in the schools, in commercials on TV, etc. While combatting the age old "can't happen to me" is a losing prospect, killing a child - regardless of its developmental level - is a damned poor reaction to a free choice made in defiance of known consequences.

The thing is, in spite of all the "what if this" or "what if that", medical problems, economic problems (sic), etc., in the end, the real purpose behind the demand for open access to legal abortions is society wants the right to rid themselves of responsibility for the known possible consequences of sexual activities. That is a damned (literally if you are religious) poor reason for denying the unborn their basic human rights based on a "they don't count" opinion-based yardstick.

 

[Canceled2]

Why should there be more involved that the basic right to life vs. other rights? Any other objection still comes down to that, because all the "woman's body used against her will" still boils down to the basic fact that pregnancy is temporary, while death is permanent. Therefore, life still trumps as the more basic right. All other justifications for legalized abortion come down to the same problem. Developmental level is temporary, death is permanent. Inconvenience is temporary, death is permanent. etc. etc. etc.

And sorry to disagree, but yes, consensual sex IS implied permission for any resulting unborn child. The claim otherwise is an argument that people should not be responsible for their decisions. Any person in our society who is old enough to worry about unplanned pregnancy KNOWS that to engage in sexual intercourse has the associated risk of pregnancy. We know this to be true even when using birth control, since no method of BC is 100% effective - especially when human error is added into the mix. We hammer away at that fact in basic sex education in the schools, in commercials on TV, etc. While combatting the age old "can't happen to me" is a losing prospect, killing a child - regardless of its developmental level - is a damned poor reaction to a free choice made in defiance of known consequences.

The thing is, in spite of all the "what if this" or "what if that", medical problems, economic problems (sic), etc., in the end, the real purpose behind the demand for open access to legal abortions is society wants the right to rid themselves of responsibility for the known possible consequences of sexual activities. That is a damned (literally if you are religious) poor reason for denying the unborn their basic human rights based on a "they don't count" opinion-based yardstick.

Truly a great response...thanks!

 

[apple0154]

Is it OK for me to murder someone as a precaution to the possibility they may break into my house because they are a known criminal?

Didn't think so.


So why all the justifications based on what POSSIBLY could happen? If we were to start allowing homicides base on unsubstantiated possibilities, few would live to tell the tale. Nothing more than the usual blind defense strategy. (note the use of the term "fetus", scientifically accurate, but an emotionally deliberate diminishment of the unborn's humanity.)

Now SUBSTANTIATED PROBABILITY of life-threatening complications is a different matter. There are those cases where the mother's life is in genuine danger from trying to carry a child to term. Now we are talking about the right to life vs. the right to life. Then, and only then, should a mother have the choice to risk her life or kill the other human who is threatening her life. And, no, sorry, but QUALITY of life does not count. A person can survive, and live a relatively normal life with missing toes or a damaged kidney. (not to mention kidneys can be replaced these days.) Injury is recoverable. Death is not.

But if a fetus is a human being and the vast majority of problem pregnancies are due to the faulty body of the woman how can an abortion be justified?

The fetus is not a threat to the woman unless we're talking, say, a tubal pregnancy. Again, in the great majority of cases, the fault lies with the woman's defective body. I don't understand the thinking behind killing an innocent human being (fetus) because some other human being has a defective body. It just doesn't make any sense, at all.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're willing to have the woman suffer whatever injury may result other than certain death? Is that correct?

 

[apple0154]

The thing is, in spite of all the "what if this" or "what if that", medical problems, economic problems (sic), etc., in the end, the real purpose behind the demand for open access to legal abortions is society wants the right to rid themselves of responsibility for the known possible consequences of sexual activities. That is a damned (literally if you are religious) poor reason for denying the unborn their basic human rights based on a "they don't count" opinion-based yardstick.

It's not that society wants the right to rid themselves of responsibility. It's that the laws which apply to human beings can not be applied to fetuses.

The foundation of our society is built on the belief that all human beings are equal. No ones life is worth more than the next person. For example, if two people show up at an emergency room having been in a building explosion the more critically injured individual will be helped first. The CEO does not get preference over the janitor.

When it comes to fetuses the life of the woman is always considered first. There is never a discussion where someone will insist a woman who is experiencing a problem pregnancy and may suffer fatal injuries due to a faulty body be placed in intensive care and allowed to deteriorate while being kept alive artificially until the fetus is viable. The fetus is automatically prejudiced.

Now, consider history and how many people have died fighting against that type of prejudice, the type where one class of human being was automatically considered less worthy of life. Not only less worthy but condemned to death through no fault of their own.

To classify a fetus as a human being turns all our laws and customs and beliefs on their head.

Some people feel we can simply return to the days when abortion was illegal. That's like saying we can return to the days when women had few rights. After all, society functioned just fine. Women were paid less and if they had a job they'd better get used to the boss slapping their ass on occasion or accepting the idea that if they didn't date the boss they better not expect a raise any time soon. Society functioned like that for decades until reason and equal rights advanced. Logic and common sense dictated that situation was not correct.

The same applies to abortion. There is no turning back the clock. People are more assertive. A law has to make sense or people don't follow it. Whether it's political or religious leaders uttering rules people make the judgment.

The question is can a fetus fit into the rules we apply to human beings? Do we adjust the rules to accommodate a second class of human being, a class whose life, while important, never equals the life of a woman? A class of human being that has the right to use another person's body?

The real purpose, the justification, the absolute necessity behind a woman having the right to abort has little to do with shirking responsibility. To deny that right by declaring a fetus a human being is a mockery and strikes at the very essence of freedom and the foundation upon which our society is built.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Why should there be more involved that the basic right to life vs. other rights? Any other objection still comes down to that, because all the "woman's body used against her will" still boils down to the basic fact that pregnancy is temporary, while death is permanent. Therefore, life still trumps as the more basic right. All other justifications for legalized abortion come down to the same problem. Developmental level is temporary, death is permanent. Inconvenience is temporary, death is permanent. etc. etc. etc.

And sorry to disagree, but yes, consensual sex IS implied permission for any resulting unborn child. The claim otherwise is an argument that people should not be responsible for their decisions. Any person in our society who is old enough to worry about unplanned pregnancy KNOWS that to engage in sexual intercourse has the associated risk of pregnancy. We know this to be true even when using birth control, since no method of BC is 100% effective - especially when human error is added into the mix. We hammer away at that fact in basic sex education in the schools, in commercials on TV, etc. While combatting the age old "can't happen to me" is a losing prospect, killing a child - regardless of its developmental level - is a damned poor reaction to a free choice made in defiance of known consequences.

The thing is, in spite of all the "what if this" or "what if that", medical problems, economic problems (sic), etc., in the end, the real purpose behind the demand for open access to legal abortions is society wants the right to rid themselves of responsibility for the known possible consequences of sexual activities. That is a damned (literally if you are religious) poor reason for denying the unborn their basic human rights based on a "they don't count" opinion-based yardstick.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

But if a fetus is a human being and the vast majority of problem pregnancies are due to the faulty body of the woman how can an abortion be justified?

The fetus is not a threat to the woman unless we're talking, say, a tubal pregnancy. Again, in the great majority of cases, the fault lies with the woman's defective body. I don't understand the thinking behind killing an innocent human being (fetus) because some other human being has a defective body. It just doesn't make any sense, at all.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're willing to have the woman suffer whatever injury may result other than certain death? Is that correct?

i don't remember you ever addressing this, if you did, sorry,...but do you support a murder charge for someone such as scott peterson for murdering his wife and unborn baby? because that is what he was charged with (two counts of murder) and convicted of.

 

[Good Luck]

To classify a fetus as a human being turns all our laws and customs and beliefs on their head.

There was a time when classifying minorities as human beings turned a great number of laws and beliefs on their heads. Yet we managed to get through it because we recognized that classifying them as NOT "real humans" was morally corrupt.

The FACTS are that science PROVES the unborn to be living humans. It is only your own prejudice that does not allow you to accept these facts.

You talk about the principle that ALL humans are supposed to be equal. We have laws that demand we treat all humans (persons) equally under the law. Yet that is not quite true, is it? You will only accept equal treatment for those humans you AGREE deserve human rights. So, when it comes to equality, nothing fundamental has changed. We have added minorities to the list of accepted humans deserving human rights. But we still will not accept the principle that ALL humans deserve human rights. You still cling to the idea that society has the right to exclude specified groups of humans. I do not accept that idea.

Yes, in a medical situation, even if there is not threat to the mother's life, the mother is automatically considered first unless the mother herself demands her baby be put first. Then again, there was a time when white people in our society were automatically put first. In your emergency room example, a white person with a broken finger would be treated before a black person with a sucking chest wound. We got over that by recognizing we were excluding a living human based on a selected differentiation. Before, Blacks were not included because they were "different". Now we exclude the unborn because they are "different". You can claim that excluding the unborn is justified all you want, but in the end, all your excuses come down to their being "different" from us, despite the scientific fact that they are, indeed, human.

Laws can be changed. So complaining about law being "turned on their heads" is a flimsy reason to continue with the injustice of denying a specified class of humans their basic human rights. and the attitude that it is OK to deny ANY class of humans their rights based on our BELIEFS has been proven an immoral system time and again throughout history. Sad thing is, unless you have experienced being on the outside due to those immoral beliefs, very few who hold to them will ever give them up.

 

[apple0154]

i don't remember you ever addressing this, if you did, sorry,...but do you support a murder charge for someone such as scott peterson for murdering his wife and unborn baby? because that is what he was charged with (two counts of murder) and convicted of.

No, I don't support it.

What better time to try and get the fetus considered a human being than to include it in the horrific crime of murdering a pregnant woman. Any jury would convict anyone of anything and everything they could.

It would have been interesting to see if any jury member supported a woman's right to abortion.

Look at how laws were and are being generally considered regarding abortion. The doctor performing the abortion is to be severely sentenced while the woman would receive little or no punishment.

Let's take a look at a "regular" murder case. The person hiring a hit-man is considered just as guilty as the murderer and both usually receive similar sentences, 15+years. If a fetus is a human being then a pregnant woman seeking an abortion is the same as a person contracting out a murder. Are we going to imprison women who seek abortions to 15+ years in prison?

As I've explained before society either can't or won't apply laws that deal with human beings to fetuses. Or anti-abortionists don't want to talk about them.

If fetuses are classified as human beings and abortion is outlawed then any woman seeking an abortion, contacting a doctor for an abortion consultation, should be treated the same as if one offered to pay an assassin to kill a husband or wife or neighbor.

But we never hear that suggestion even though that is the logical thing to do. And there's no reason why the laws could not eventually be changed to imprison women for 15+ years.

Why don't anti-abortionists put that in their pamphlets?