<...To appeal to the idea of human pain suffered by a human-shaped creature with less ability to form a thought than a bird has is deceitful.

To compare the prerogatives of the potential human to those of the actual one is ridiculous.



So you would have no problem chopping up a live bird with a scalpel? Okay, sorry. That one was an easy cheap shot.

The dehumanization of the child in the womb is essential to the entire abortion argument. To hold any other position would make abortion inconceivable, so I can understand that pro-abortionists have no alternative.

Most frontline pro-abortion groups oppose ANY restrictions on abortion, including partial birth abortion. If you hold the position that a third-trimester baby can't feel pain, then I think we have reached an impasse in this argument.

It sort of reminds me of the entire circumcision argument in the old days when doctors--real ones, with degrees--insisted that newborns "didn't feel pain." My son was circumcised, but I was standing right next to the doctor when it was done, and damn straight there was anesthetic involved, or the doctor might have learned an interesting lesson.

My Dad tried to convince me while fishing that fish "didn't feel pain" from the hooks either. I held fish while removing the hooks, and came to my own conclusions. I fished, and cleaned and ate the fish, but I didn't pretend the fish didn't mind it.

"They don't feel pain like we do" was commonly heard around the slave trades, too. Most of the traders honestly believed it.

If Nathanson doesn't want to perform any more abortions, no one is twisting his arm. But he doesn't want freedom of conscience for himself, he wants the spotlight. He's an activist. He's moving his focus to a new and more exciting group, one that will praise and pet him as his former constituency did when they were struggling for legitimacy.

"If Martin Luther King doesn't want black people lynched, he doesn't have to lynch them." Sorry. Another cheap shot.

Interesting how the motivations of an activist become "self-serving" when his activism agenda isn't on the liberal plantation any more. Is there any objective evidence that the same negatives do not apply to pro-abortion activists (or any other leftist activists) hogging the cameras? Good Lord, look at Jesse Jackson. And it goes without saying that Kate Michelman probably has an easier time getting mainstream press coverage than Nathanson does. Hell, until a week or so ago I had never even heard of the man.