Thanx for sharing! I will also share this video :)

Oh groovy! An air head doing an informercial with a gay dude prompter. The water in Peoria has been tainted for years Jill. In Rockford, we learned advertising tactics in Jr high. Sorry that you spent those years dealing with your head spinning round. Sorry that you still are.

That dude is totally like a more feminine version of my summer english teacher.

I'm not exactly getting what she means by the end.

No evil act can be done so that good is brought from it?

What does that last line mean? That the terms are contradictory or that it is not allowed?

PIP,

That it's not allowed.

Sheesh - I don't have speakers on this computer at work and can't find the text anywhere...

She didn't make a single valid point.

The debate is not about the humanity of the fetus. It is about whether or not a woman has the right to control her body and whether or not she has the right to deny another individual access to her body.

Her position on pregnancy after rape is absolutely deplorable. I loose all respect for anyone who makes this argument. It's basically saying that women in society have no rights to their bodies and that their bodies can be forcibly seized from them in order to benefit another. Here, one doesn't even have the illusion of claiming that the women gave consent. This position is basically saying that all women and their lives don't matter.

The argument that a fetus resulting from rape isn't at fault and thus shouldn't be aborted is wrong on so many levels. One doesn't have to be at fault to be imposing upon another.

One should simply remove the expanding fallopian tube (in cases of esoteric pregnancy) instead of abort the fetus? I'm at a loss for how this argument even makes since. The fetus is going to loose its potential for life either way. What difference does it make if its through abortion or a slow death by exposure?

Enigma,

It's basically saying that women in society have no rights to their bodies and that their bodies can be forcibly seized from them in order to benefit another.

Aren't we being a little overdramatic? No rights to their bodies? You're saying that if abortion is outlawed then women will be forced to eat what they're told, wear what we say, drive the car we choose, have sex at a predetermined time???

I don't think so. The only right a woman will lose is the "right" to kill her child, which is not a right at all.

As Doug says, how can we take away a right that was never there to begin with?

Hi PIP.

"No evil act can be done so that good is brought from it?"

You're taking a class in moral theology or something I thought you once said? They should discuss it in that class. God love you.

MK,

"Aren't we being a little overdramatic?"

No. If control of one's body can be arbitrarily taken away, what rights can one possible have? The right to control one's own person is absolutely fundamental.

"I don't think so. The only right a woman will lose is the "right" to kill her child, which is not a right at all."

Fetuses do not have rights to impose upon others. They do not have the right to use another's body if that other does not consent. No one's rights are violated by abortion. The right to life does not equal the right to use someone else to survive against their will.

"The right to life does not equal the right to use someone else to survive against their will."

It does when its the ONLY way they can survive and they are your child that you created.

Zeke,

"It does when its the ONLY way they can survive and they are your child that you created."

Simply because such access is necessary in order to sustain life does not obligate one to provide such access. Need does not entail obligation.

Bobby--

We will. Right now we are discussing death in the health care morality and history/background/recognizing moral issues in my intro class.

Mainly, I wasn't sure what her context was, because she was talking about removing fallopian tubes right beforehand.