Quote:
I never stated my position on abortion. You are leaping to conclusions. <snip much>


That may be true. And I would almost verge on apologizing if I didn't reread what set my comments off:

"Might be more inconvenient but not likely more dangerous for the woman."

I thought, and still feel like this was pretty flippant, never mind wrong. Leaving aside all of the woulda-shouldas of birth control and sexual behavior, I have no doubt that the religious right, if they had their way, would leave us with abstinence as the sole defense. This is of course unless their daughter becomes pregnant in which case I figure that there is a 1-in-20 chance that their doctor will decide that their are clinical indications for a little <nudge-nudge, wink-wink> dilation and curettage.

I am not certain, but I'm guessing that women have been having abortions since long before Jeff's Christian god was invented and that they will likely be having them, albeit perhaps with some more advanced RU486, long after Jeff's god has joined Zeus in the Religion Hall of Fame. In the meantime, his followers/inventors see fit to preside over the lives of others...women...make those lives more difficult and potentially more dangerous, history and individual freedom be damned.

I mention Mississippi. Mostly because it was featured in a news story about the success of anti-clinic activity. It is not inconceivable to me that in the not-too-distant future, the Mason-Dixon line will become significant in yet another way.
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.