Another National Debate Settled

Myths of reproductive freedom: Part II — Repealing the law of cause and effect
Jennifer Roback Morse
September 6, 2005

It is startling to realize that the looming battle for the Supreme Court hinges on whether nominees will pledge their support for the utterly irrational demand to suspend the law of cause and effect. For that is what the claim that we have a constitutional right to ?reproductive freedom? amounts to. All Americans are entitled to have the cause, namely, unlimited sexual activity, without ever experiencing the effect, namely, a live baby. To see the absurdity of this claim, try out a couple of analogies.

Ok, here’s one. There’s something that irrationally defies the law of cause and effect by teaching us that we are entitled to have the cause — jumping out of an airplane — without the effect — landing blam! on the ground and being dead. That thing is a parachute.

Another thing is the flint spearpoint. It taught us that we could have the cause — being hungry — without the effect — staring in eternally impotent frustration at herds of gazelle. We can play this game all day, and so can Ms. Morse.

Consider eating, for instance. We can all agree that eating is a good and necessary thing, that everyone is entitled to eat. We might even agree that gourmet eating is one of life?s great pleasures. We would not conclude that everyone has a constitutional right to eat as much as they want, without ever getting heart disease, high blood pressure or other natural consequences of overeating. We could not coherently claim that every person has a constitutional right to eat without getting fat, and call it ?gastronomical freedom.? (Although, considering the number of overweight people waddling around America, maybe people do think they have such an entitlement.)

Not like TownHall columnists, who along with being geniuses, are also champion athletes who dine solely on oat bran and polar water.

“C is for cookie, it’s good enough for me…”

So, as Ms. Morse says, dietary supplements, exercise programs, and pharmaceuticals that promote weight-loss can and should be forbidden by law. Because the purpose of government is not to ensure the common welfare, but to keep people from breaking laws of nature.

But maybe we’re not getting this yet. She’s really talking about fucking, and as we know, that’s totally different than anything else in the world. Let’s skip the next five hundred million words of the column and see how.

Legal scholars will argue that the right to privacy upon which Roe v. Wade depends exists nowhere in the Constitution. I go one step further: the concept of ?reproductive freedom? which Roe attempts to establish is incoherent. It truly is irrational to insist that nominees to the Supreme Court [pledge] their allegiance to the doctrine of abortion on demand.

And see, the Constitution itself irrationally defies the laws of cause-and-effect by trying to have the cause — the inadequacy of the Articles of Confederation — without the effect — the failure of the United States of America to become a functioning nation by around 1790 or so. So she’s right: it’s just turtles all the way down.

Follow this line of reasoning long enough, and eventually we end up returning to the primal ooze and giving up the whole ‘multicellular’ thing — and soon popping back into the eternal void of non-being, whose blackness is beyond witness. Now that’s conservative!

Jennifer Roback Morse is a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and the author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love In A Hook-up World, Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn’t Work and 101 Tips for a Happier Marriage.

PS: If you’re looking for life-long love, Jennifer Roback Morse looks like this:


[Update: We can’t easily figure out who posted first because of the time zone difference, but S.Z. of Pacific Time (?) seems to have gotten her chocolate in our Central European Summer Time peanut butter, writing the same Morse exegesis, only with the usual difference of her stuff being of higher quality. If anyone can explain this without invoking leprechauns or astrology, please let us know. Otherwise, please consider this part of the Ultimate Moonbat Challenge, and a clear sign that the Poor Man needs to be voted off the island. Ol’ Hurricane Andrew is still on vacation, you know — cuttin’ that brush.]


Comments: 58


Wow, she hit every branch on the way down, didn’t she.


It’s always the ugly ones, isn’t it?


I vaguely recall some sci-fi story about an alien race which enjoyed casual sex in public but had strict taboos regarding the shameful subject of eating. No doubt in that world Jenifer Roback Morse is employing the same arguments against the legalization of toothpaste.


yeah, I remember that story, they would go to sleazy cinemas to watch people *eating* on the screen … what on earth could it have been (sixties, I think)?)

Charles J. Sperling

Luis Bunuel has some fun with a similar idea in “The Phantom of Liberty,” where people sit on toilets in dining rooms…and then sneak into bathrooms to eat.


Follow this line of reasoning long enough, and eventually we end up returning to the primal ooze and giving up the whole ‘multicellular’ thing — and soon popping back into the eternal void of non-being, whose blackness is beyond witness. Now that’s conservative!

No it’s not- they don’t believe in evolution.


Doesn’t every drug, medical device, or heck, health-related product ever created violate her notion of avoiding effect?


This is just so fucking stupid, I have nothing at all to say. I’m reduced to my usual tactic of e-mailing the article of a complete cretin/certifiably insane Townhall columnist to another…in this case, Charles Krauthammer (…actually, it’s always Charles Krauthammer, because deep down, I believe he knows better) and screech…See? Look at this! LOOK AT THIS!!!1!

It’s satisfying for all of 3 minutes.


So this is what the reasoning of a Hoover Research Fellow looks like. What’s incredible is that NBC, CNN, and NYT use the title, “Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution” as a way of establishing the qualifications of a guest or Op-Ed writer. And when CNN and NBC identify the Hoover Institution as “conservative,” Coulter, Horowitz, and Goldberg are invited on later to use this labelling as evidence of a left-wing bias at CNN and NBC.


Bonnie Raitt? Say it ain’t so!


As a stunning hunk who bears a striking resemblance to Jason Priestly (…just add 30 pounds), I can say I’m not too fond of lookist remarks. Dr. Morse’s (and yes, it is Dr. Morse) worth with regard to public discourse should, first and foremost, be evaluated on its content. Full stop. In this instance, her physical appearance should in no way detract from what’s she’s saying.

…of course, in her case, physical appearance is not exactly helping either, right?


Nice to know that by her ideals, Jenna and Barbara and Condi are still virgins! But why aren’t Laura and Ms. Harlequin Romance Cheney pregnant?


Except that she obviously brushes her hair, as if she has the right to sleep and not suffer the obligatory bed-head effect. Shameful.


Even though I tend to disagree with most of the posts here, I can see that the majority of the comments stem from intelligent, educated people who are contributing to the betterment of mankind by keeping the check and balance system intact. Congratulations on making it through the “abortion on demand” gauntlet.
I’m glad someone made the right choice on your behalf.


Live in a “temperate” climate and die of hypothermia in the winter…. without the artificial intervention of clothing.



Funny how conservatives who supposedly think government should stay out of their lives suddenly don’t believe in a right to privacy when it means they can’t force their morality on other people. A casual observer might mistake them for fucking hypocrites.


to md. you can choose cotton, synthetics or fur for your artificial intervention. Try the ones that you don’t have to sacrifice life to achieve. to Ginger. Take no heed to those mean conservatives and their morals, any form of morality you can muster up will do.


What ever happened to the old liberal notion of defending those who cannot defend themselves? I can’t think of a more defenseless, and vulnerable group than the unborn in the USA (no Bruce Springsteen pun intended). As far as choice is concerned, all future choices for the growing fetus are wiped out with the decision to have an abortion. I don’t go around carrying signs of chopped up fetuses and I don’t go around calling women who have abortions murderers. No, we shouldn’t condemn these women, some of whom are between a rock and a hard place. But we should encourage life, at the very least, in situations where giving birth has not really been explored as a viable alternative to abortion. What do I know, however? I’m just a:
Pro-life Punk: words and music by Dr. Bruce L. Thiessen, aka Dr. BLT (c)2005


Try the ones that you don’t have to sacrifice life to achieve.

Which would leave us with nothing but polyester.

I’d rather freeze.


Let’s sedulously after resources, and exhaust all potential resources that would potentially lead to a higher quality of life for both would-be mother and would-be infant before coming to the conclusion that abortion is the answer, that’s all I’m asking.


I’m notorious for typos. I’m sorry. The above entry should read “Let’s sedulously seek after resources…”


let’s lecture the libruls about abortion while we starve and fry the rest of the planet. great idea.


So the government shouldn’t be depended upon to help citizens with natural disasters, but should be allowed to decide how many children we should have. Got it.


Congratulations on making it through the “abortion on demand” gauntlet.
I’m glad someone made the right choice on your behalf.

I’m a lot more impressed at my ability to survive the “spontaneous miscarriage ends 45% of all pregnancies” slaughter. And the “1 in 5,000,000 sperm” rally race.


Both of you bring up some good points. No, Rowan, we should do whatever we can to feed and to preserve the rest of the planet. One of the problems with the pro-life movement is that the philosophy is often not extended beyond the environment of the womb. I would like to see the movement broaden its pro-life perspective in this respect. Anne, your point is well taken. While the government should do what it can to preserve life in the environment of the womb, it should also be held accountable for its response to natural disasters. If mistakes were made in the handling of the hurricane situation, these mistakes should be exposed and every effort should be made to ensure that such mistakes are not made again in the future. It’s tempting right now to blame the dilatory response in the hurricane-stricken region all on Bush, after all, he is in charge of the country, but we should all exercise self-discipline and reserve judgment until a full investigation into the problem has taken place. If Bush did make mistakes, and this is proven to be the case, then he should, by all means be held accountable for those mistakes.


This may be stating the obvious Dr. BLT, but the point of this blog entry was not to argue that abortions are great things and everyone should run out to have one (or two!) right now. The point was that Ms Morse’s “argument” is probably the most brain-damaged conglomeration fractured logic ever to be strung together out of actual words in the history of the universe.

Fetuses are “a defenseless and vulnerable group” if you believe that fetuses are human beings. Just as in general, if you believe that a fetus is a human being then abortion is murder. And if you don’t believe that, then access to abortion is a necessary human right. And that’s really all there is to the argument.

And it’s simply mind-boggling how much shear tonnage of words have been uselessly shoveled onto the debate by misguided (or plain stupid) people who delude themselves that they’ve come up with the final, impenetrable, absolutely logical argument that’s finally gonna convince all those nasty abortion-promoters of the error of their ways.


You’ve made some good points, Karl. I don’t object to, or disagree with, anything you’ve said.


Dr. BLT,
So when would it be convenient for you to “hold Mr. Bush accountable for those mistakes” – if proven; 2007, 2009, after he’s dead? And who gets to prove them, Bush or Cheney or maybe bring back the fair and balanced Ken Starr?
And which mistakes do we handle first? 9/11 or incompetence for intelligence by his staff or lies to Congress or Iraq or …well let’s start with those?
I’m sure you’d like to be a determining factor in the judgement since you seem to have defended him in the past. That would be fair.
I’d love to sit in real judgement of the man and his policies since I’ve ridiculed him in the past. And I could do it with a clear conscience, with the same slam-dunk intelligence that was provided him by his selected underlings.
And if I find him guilty and pronounce the worst possible sentence and that sentence is carried out, why, I could live with myself afterward even if evidence later proves me wrong. Oops! I would be doing it in the best interests of the country. Just like Georgie!
Nobody twisted his arm to become president. He made the choice himself and now he doesn’t like facing the consequences of his erroneous actions. Tough shit.
Must be nice to have a job you can screw up, get people killed illegally, lie to people, basically increase your friends wealth and never be held accountable. He works for us, remember?


Father Tyme, even if Bush were guilty of those things you’ve proclaimed him guilty of in the past, isn’t it important not to rush to judgment in this case, not to assume somebody is guilty based on what appears to you to be the case? I’m sure experience has taught you that appearances do not automatically translate into reality. What appears to be, once examined, is, quite often, not the case.


Lord, every time I see HRH BLT’s comments, I get the most low-rent ear-worm imaginable……the folks at Sadly, No!…don’t ya know…

Someone kill me; kill me now.

Although, Good Doctor, that isn’t condemnation of your worth as a person. It’s just that that song really sucks.


“Jennifer Roback Morse is a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution…”

Write your own vacuum joke in the space provided:


Kind of a cross between Hillary Clinton and Samantha on Bewitched.


Kurt Vonnegut wrote in Breakfast of Champions about the aliens who considered films about eating dirty. They ate petroluem and coal after killing all the plant and animal life on their planet with pollution, so watching someone eating a pear was understandably exciting.


Dr. BLT,
Using your logic, losing professional sports teams shouldn’t rush to fire a manager that isn’t winning for the front office. Some don’t and they stay losers for years. When the decision is finally made, the manager is gone and the team takes a new heading.

When someone is charged with the responsibility for the care of 300 million people, there’s no time for OJT, there’s no giving more chances when you’ve proven yourself incapable.
George Bush is not infallible and we didn’t expect him to be. George Bush is egomaniacal and that can’t be allowed. There’s too much at stake to keep giving him the benefit of the doubt. Too much incompetence surrounds him and it’s of his own choosing.
Businesses that lose money during a poor CEO management tenure remove the CEO so that the stockholders don’t lose. We’re stockholders. We entrusted him in 2004, not necessarily in 2000 and the profits aren’t there.
Like it or not, whether he’s ultimately responsible or not, he’s answerable to us, not his cronies or big business. I think sometimes the public forgets that.
The reason our founding fathers put the impeachment process in a Constitution that Bush so wants to change, is that they knew given a fixed term of office, should corruption arise, a means was needed to remove that source of corruption.
The Republicans salivated over a sex scandal with Clinton but ignore Bush’s transgressions.
If we give Bush the benefit of waiting to prove he’s more incompetent, we stand the risk of greater harm to our own good.
Imagine a megalomaniacal fascist in the position of the presidency. Further imagine that he feels he’s answerable to no one but himself and HIS god.
Imagine still a mind close to breaking with the power of the free world at his beck and his desire to impose his will on the world. If he feels that his world is failing him, what would prevent him from causing world pandemonium through the arbitrary use of something as great as nuclear weapons?
Yes, he could “push the button” anytime he wants. Congress gave him that power. All I ask is restraint.
Your conservative compassion will give him added time. I say he’s already had enough time. Cooler, more logical heads need to prevail. If it means removal of the man making decisions, so be it. If I’m wrong, we’ve just lost one man. If I’m right we may lose a country, and we’re already well on our way to that.
If he’s not for us, he’s against us!
As the conservatives are so fond of saying, “Shouldn’t we err on the side of caution?”
Bush had his chance. 9/11 happened on his watch whether it was his fault or not. He’s learned nothing since. He’s running out of excuses and we’re running out of time.
Sorry for the long rant Sadly,No. I appreciate the time, while some of us have it.


Kind of a cross between Hillary Clinton and Samantha on Bewitched.

No, I would say, frankly that she looks like Nancy Cartwright. But at least Nancy’s smart, speaks several languages and is a talented voice actor. An she ain’t got no doctorate, neither.

If Dr. Morse can even muster a weak imitation of Ed Sullivan, then we’ll talk.

Dr Morse? Are you up to the challenge?


Father Tyme, I must say that it is refreshing to actually engage in dialogue with someone on this site who actually uses his brain, and doesn’t simply resort to ad hominem attacks, uncontrollable fits of cursing, senseless insults and adolescent bullying tactics. Having said that, I don’t agree that intervening in national and international affairs is tantamount to the actions of a player in world of professional sports. It is a much more ambiguous undertaking. For example, while the situation in Iraq may appear to many to be an abysmal failure, we do not know what could have happened if Saddam were left in power. No matter how many troops we have to say good-bye to due to untimely deaths, a much more horrific nightmare could have ensued had we left Saddam to his own devices. Moreover, the citizens of Iraq have lived under the iron fist of a brutal dictator for so long that they are not accustomed to liberty and freedom. It may take decades for them to learn how to live lives marked by liberty and freedom and to adopt the resolve to protect those liberties and those freedoms with their very lives if need be. The transition has been difficult to say the least, and has cost far too many lives, this cannot be denied. But in the grand scope of things, if democracy should ultimately take hold in Iraq, Bush will go down in history as one of the greatest presidents ever. Furthermore, you are overlooking what a champion Bush has been for protecting the rights of the unborn. They have no voice. They will never have a choice–they will never have the opportunity to exercise choice or free will, if they are aborted. I have to give liberals this: They have traditionally defended those who could not defend themselves. They have traditionally been strong on behalf of the weak and the helpless. Yet they have abandoned the most vulnerable of groups–the unborn. In terms of the situation in the Gulf region, how can we possibly definitively attribute blame to anyone for the apparent delay in action when it is so early in the process? If Bush’s actions, or lack thereof, are proven to have contributed to the deaths of even one citizen in the hurricane-stricken region, then I will be one of the first Republicans to join your hue and cry. For now, let’s concentrate on saving as many folks as possible from this nightmare called Katrina.


Dr. BLT will just keep waiting with Vladimir and Estragon, forever… accountability is only for poor women who can’t afford another child.


Yet they have abandoned the most vulnerable of groups–the unborn

Dr. BLT, would you say the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the woman to control what happens to her body? Because it’s one or the other. Either the woman has bodily integrity or the woman is always inferior to the needs of the fetus.


Anne, is the body of the fetus inferior simply because it is less developed than the body of a woman? Does the fact that the fetus hasn’t yet acquired the language to declare, “It’s my body!” make the body of the fetus any less important than the body of the woman? It’s not just a matter of the woman having control over what happens to her body. Once a fetus is growing and moving in the womb, the entire environment, the fully developed body of the woman, and the developing body of the fetus (as an interactive dyad) must be taken into consideration. The woman is not inferior to the fetus, and the fetus is not inferior to the woman. Both should have the right to live. Both should be able to exercise choice. The fetus cannot defend itself. It is, by nature of its age, weaker and more vulnerablethan a woman, so if it comes down to defending the rights of the woman vs. the rights of the fetus, we should go to greater lengths to protect the rights of the fetus.


I’m a lot more impressed at my ability to survive the “spontaneous miscarriage ends 45% of all pregnancies” slaughter. And the “1 in 5,000,000 sperm” rally race.

Not to mention the “what if Dad had just rolled over and jerked off that night” lottery.


Dr. BLT,
Your statement that we should go to greater lengths to protect the rights of the fetus is somewhat disheartening. I notice that you are careful what NOT to say.
About the “rights” of a fetus; why does a fetus have rights? Rights are confired by those in power, not by mysticism from possibly erroneous writings however old or revered. There is a reason for the length of gestation in man and animal; soley to bring forth a fully developed, viable progeny. If the length of developement is less, the “product” therefore must be underdeveloped.
While premature babies are born every day and some live perfectly normal lives, you know as well as I that the vast majority do not survive, or if they do, it’s not our expectation of a normal life.
The question now becomes, when is the fetus sentient? For doesn’t sentience determine life as we know it? There has been study after study as to when this occurs. I’ve read volumes on the matter. Some say during the last weeks, some say last trimester, religious fanatics with absolutely no proof say at conception(!) and some say at birth. An old religion I heard of in a far away land believes that the soul of the mother “parts” upon birth and infuses the child, not before.
The problem with pro and anti abortion proponents is that of philosophy. On the pro life side, it’s derived from religion, even though there is no basis in the “original” bible to protecting unborn; the latter translations were a game of whisper. The anti factions decry the woman’s rights first since she is already a viable human being.
Your choice, as a woman should be your choice; not a religion effected choice unless you want that. That said, you as a woman should have no decision over someone else’s choice because of your beliefs.
It’s really very simple and greatly complex. Decisions have been made by men because they were supposedly superior. Go argue that with Liz or Annti over at Blondesense! If a woman is an intelligent human being, who are you to determine her rights to her body because of your views? It would be as ludicrous as me telling you that if I think you are inferior to me because of skin color or height or weight that I can tell you what to do. I’m sure you wouldn’t like that even if I and my believing followers “knew” it was for your own good.
No amount of proselytizing will convince either of us. But I will not tell you or your wife what to do with your bodies. That seems to be the difference, philosophies aside, between the two camps.
It’s difficult for me to accept your version of protection for something that is not yet but may become a human while allowing a callous attitude toward war to protect yourself(generic) from real or imagined enemies.
Rights are a determinant of social position. In a war, I might have to choose between your life and that of another. A choice must be made so that one may live. If you were old and the other young, I might choose youth. I also might want to keep experience alive.
You are not in a position to make a choice for women in general but that seems what you desire; carte blanche for your views because you think them right or holy or the proper thing to do. That’s fine. Make your decisions concerning those over which you have power. Justification by religion, yours or anyone else’s, is polemic. I might not subscribe to your religious views.
We differ on many things but I would never presume to tell your wife she either had to have or could not have an abortion; that should be hers and your choice, not mine. (I am making the foolish masculine presumption that you are indeed male. If not, I hope you’ll understand.) Eventually there will be compromise. There has to be. Such is life…and death.
Maybe we should start a “point – counterpoint blog”; could be interesting.


Anne, is the body of the fetus inferior simply because it is less developed than the body of a woman?

Of course.

Does the fact that the fetus hasn’t yet acquired the language to declare, “It’s my body!” make the body of the fetus any less important than the body of the woman?

Yes, it does.

It’s not just a matter of the woman having control over what happens to her body.

Yes, it is.

The fetus is dependent on the woman’s body for development.


Father Tyme, once again, I am grateful that you are actually engaging your mind instead of simply resorting to the mindless babbling of so many on this site. Your argument concerning the fetus not being fully developed is a weak one however. The problem is this: a “fully developed viable progeny” is not fully developed at all. When a baby is born, the baby is very much underdeveloped. In fact, if you’ve studied Carl Jung, you’ll realize that one cannot really said to be fully developed until one is a senior citizen. That’s where the developmental argument falls apart. As far as your insistence that a man should never tell a woman what to do with her body, this reflects an understanding of conception that is divorced from its interactional context. Are you suggesting that the man is not involved in the process of conception? That his participation in the sexual act has nothing to do with the outcome, but that it is all the woman. If so, that is certainly a bizzare notion. No, the man doesn’t have to bear the agonizing pain of childbirth, but, some men feel emotional pain at the thought that they are often excluded from the decision-making process, when the fetus is potentially their son, or their daughter. So you are suggesting they should be shut out of the decision. There are two bodies that go into the forming of a fetus, not one. And once the fetus has been formed, there are now three bodies. So the woman is not an island. She may be the largest island, among a total of three islands, but the notion that she must make the decision as to the fate of the would-be infant all by herself is bizarre. You say that the question is when is the baby sentient, but that is you artificially imposing your reality onto the situation. Yes, rights are confired by those in power, but not all of us believe that man, or woman for that matter, is the measure of all things. I respect your opinion, because it is well thought out, and it is intelligent. But it is based on flawed reasoning and arbitrary notions as to what constitutes life. Also, while the woman is obviously the central figure in terms of the pregancy, you are not looking at the situation from a systems perspective, and the universe operates within a system. We are not isolated units moving about independently within the universe.


“Consider eating, for instance. We can all agree that eating is a good and necessary thing, that everyone is entitled to eat. We might even agree that gourmet eating is one of life?s great pleasures. We would not conclude that everyone has a constitutional right to eat as much as they want, without ever getting heart disease, high blood pressure or other natural consequences of overeating. We could not coherently claim that every person has a constitutional right to eat without getting fat, and call it ‘gastronomical freedom.'”

I’m writing to my senators and congressman immediately to demand that artificial sweeteners such as saccharine, aspartame and splenda be outlawed. No one should be allowed to experience sweetness on his/her tastebuds without having to deal with the natural carbohydrates naturally linked to such a sensation. If you don’t want to deal with the extra pounds, then by golly, drink your coffee black without the artificial sweeteners!


Anne, you’ve provided absolutely no rationale for your answers. Are you saying that dependency is equal to inferiority? On what basis do you make that determination? At least the Father Tyme’s response makes sense if one adopts the humanistic notion that individual human beings are gods unto themselves.


The so-called “Dr BLT” is simply interested in wasting as much as possible of the time of as many people as possible in circular reasoning which leads nowhere. signed “Dr QED”


Dr. BLT, I don’t need to make a case! It’s self-evident. The woman is in charge of the fetus; the fetus is not in charge of the woman. Are you arguing otherwise? Are you thinking about what that means? You can pretty up your language all you want, but it sounds like you’re saying that I, a grown woman with an education and a career, am nothing compared to a fetus, and I’m expected to toss my life aside in favor of what people like you think I should do with my body. So fuck you. And now you can whine about how liberals are so foul-mouthed.


So, if there were someone in Dr. BLT’s neighborhood who was in a terrible car accident – say, a musician with actual talent – and the accident took place in a community somehow cut off from the rest of the industrialized world – say, like the Gulf coast is now – and the only way to keep this individual alive was to surgically attach them to Dr. BLT’s liver, spleen and kidneys until the injured person could be transported out of that community, then I suppose the state should be allowed to compel Dr. BLT to have this done to him.

Even if it renders him unable to work for months. Even if it leaves him bedridden for months. Even if he was perhaps planning on graduating from college in the next six months, but finds himself unable to stay awake long enough to study because the demands of forcing his circulatory system to work for two bodies leaves him perpetually exhausted.

No one’s denying it would be awfully swell of Dr. BLT to voluntarily offer to do this, but the question still remains: should the state have the power to compel him to do this?

I somewhat humbly submit that anyone who thinks the state should have such power might want to take the time to look up the definition of the word “fascist”, and then have a good, long look in the mirror.


Jillian, If the victim involved in the “terrible accident” mentioned in your hypothetical would have chose to wear a safety belt or avoid a street that is known for it’s frequent accidents the resulting situation might have been avoided altogether. Along with our rights comes responsibility.


Does that include the responsibility not to use the greengrocer’s apostrophe (“known for it’s frequent accidents”)? I do hope so.Dr QED


That’s right Anne, I’ve heard it all before. “It’s my body. I’ll do what I want with it. I have no responsiblity to anyone or anything that is not my body. I’ll have sex with whoever I want, whenever I want, and rid myself of the consequences. Don’t ask me to be responsible for a fetus just because it happens to belong to me and whoever had the audacity to impregnate me! Of couse I was not involved in the insemination process. I was an innocent bystander, so why should I have to face the natural consequences? Sex is meant for me and my pleasure. It’s my body and I’ll do what I want with it.” Just who is the infant here?


Those who resort to the “F” word are those who cannot come up with intelligent arguments. Still, Anne, you are not the only one who resorted to words that fall short of being intelligent. Excessive sarcasm is also for those who are short on logic, and short on empathy for the other side. I’m sorry for being so sarcastic with you, Anne. You see, you guys are really starting to rub off on me with all your sarcasm and cynicism. Actully, I cannot blame any of you. I must take responsiblity for allowing that to happen. Now I am guilty of exactly what I’ve accused all the rest of you of—excessive sarcasm and cynicism. Once again, I apologize. You may not understand my position, Anne, because in my religion, the religion of Christianity, our bodies are not our own. They belong to our creator. They are inhabited by the Holy Spirit, though we don’t always show it with our words (see my words above) or our actions. Nevertheless, in my religion, claiming ownership to our bodies and demanding that we should be the kings or queens of our bodies is simply bizarre. This religion of Christianity, and the religion of Judaism, are the religions upon which this nation, and the constitution was formed. So why should the notion of us not being the sole proprietors of our bodies be extirpated from our system of laws?


So, Dr. BLT, would you deny someone an operation to remove a skin melanoma?


Actually, I should re-phrase that – would your religion allow you or other people to have an operation to remove a melanoma or tumour?


If a fetus is a human being, why does it look like a steamed prawn?


initiate debate: Go ahead and get that operation, you have my blessing and God’s blessing, but, please, stay out of the sun or add some UV protection the next time you’ decide to hit the beach.

Ray-O-Vac, I think if we were to see your brain under a microscope, it would probably look a lot like a steamed prawn. Does that mean your brain is not human?


“This religion of Christianity, and the religion of Judaism, are the religions upon which this nation, and the constitution was formed.”

Dude, WTF?!?! Tell me you live in Russia or something, because if you are talking about the United States, you just failed a basic Development of the U.S. I class at your local community college.

I swear, it’s dumbass shit like this that makes so many rational people really hate Christians. Stuff like the above is just patently, patently false, and yet “good Christians” like you say it with a straight face. We’re left to wonder if you’re stupid or mendacious, based on the evidence of your behavior, and then you act all pissy when we call you on your bullshit.

Seriously – there’s nothing inherent in Christian doctrine that requires its adherents to be idiots. And yet when nonbelievers like me are constantly confronted with jackass comments like the above coming out of the mouths of believers, it tends to encourage us to believe that while you don’t have to be an idiot to be a Christian, it sure helps.

In other words, you’re a disgrace to your faith.


i’m asking myself: how can it be that i’ve never ran through your site before? it’s a great one! rare pieces questioned for a long time: , revelations of john


(comments are closed)