You're lamenting that there are laws used to support a "parasite class". You're complaining that there are laws that force a man to pay for his child. And finally, your solution is another law that forces women to give birth against their will. Vengeance is the only explanation for your position I can come up with. You're angry that laws were used to force you to do some things against your will. Therefore, your perceived enemies have to suffer too under new laws affecting them. You want more coercion because you were coerced before. Lobbying for new laws to get revenge is not a sane way to deal with your problems. If you deem a certain law unjust, you should address that instead of trying to spread more misery using the justice department and your taxpayer money.
To OKgrannie: Actually, prior to Roe v. Wade deaths from back ally abortions became cause célèbres promoting legal infanticide. To Bowerbird: More African children die every year from malaria because of the unnecessary ban on DDT. What are you doing to lift the ban? Since your question contains racial undertones, what are 35,000,000 African-Americans doing about it other than demanding reparations for themselves? Bottom line: Millions starving in Africa is a UN charity hustle. I do not believe anything the UN says about starvation in Africa or anywhere else. In answer to your clever little touchy-feely question: Supporting efforts to mind our business along with NOT interfering in Africa so Africans can take care of themselves. To Herby: The only thing I am lamenting is the theft of those constitutional freedoms I used to have. See the Eric Hoffer quote following my signature. On the other hand, you are trying to justify the Right to be a parasite, not just a run of the mill parasite, but an entire class of parasites living on coerced tax dollars. And in case you still dont get it, Id be more than happy spreading misery to parasites en masse by dismantling the welfare state.
Not all botched-abortion cases were covered up, some were. Not all illegal abortions were botched, some were. IAC, illegal abortion is much more dangerous than legal ones, maternal mortality rates dropped drastically when New York decriminalized abortion. Let me explain one SIMPLE little matter to you: "infanticide" involves infants, abortion involves embryoes. If you wish to be understood, use correct terminology, if you just want to rant, it doesn't matter. DDT is still legally used in some African countries to combat malaria. That doesn't mean it's not hazardous.
To OKgrannie: Outdoor spraying, where the mosquitoes live, is banned. All of the lies about DDT began in 1962 with Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring. The United Nations along with every environmental nut job and two bit hustler jumped on Silent Spring like hogs take to slop. The truth is: DDT is not hazardous contrary to the hysterical claims made by environment screwballs. NOTE: The number of deaths caused by the ban on DDT is put at around 60 million and counting. The case can be made that Carson is the biggest single mass murderer in history. Then there is this: Much of her so-called scientific basis for a DDT ban was soon proven either wrong or exaggerated, and the 1972 edition of her book admitted as much. The myth of DDT versus the reality of malaria in Africa Phyllis Schlafly June 20, 2005 http://townhall.com/columnists/phyl...f_ddt_versus_the_reality_of_malaria_in_africa If you want more science you’ll find it in this critique: The Lies of Rachel Carson by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards (Full text, without tables and illustrations, from the Summer 1992 21st Century) http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html
It is possible to estimate with fair accuracy by the number of deaths and injuries from illegal abortions. In those days, hospitals had entire wings dedicated to the care of women suffering from botched abortions. Nothing there to indicate that a fetus is an infant. I believe that DDT is still used in some African countries. I wouldn't give Phyllis Schlafly any credibility in determining whether it is safe or not. The evidence so far indicates caution in using it.
To OKgrannie: The WHO was taking so much heat for the total ban on DDT it approved DDT for indoor-spraying only. It was a public relations ploy that did not made a dent in the number of deaths caused by malaria each year. Incidentally, the ban on DDT is the most successful population control program the global government crowd has.
This is how the number of abortions can be accurately estimated: http://eileen.undonet.com/GerriS/numbers_sykes.htm Number of abortion-related deaths (ND) = Mortality risk (MR) Number of abortions (NA) As you can easily see, because ND is a known constant, when NA is small, MR must become correspondingly big, and conversely when MR is small, NA must be big. Both cannot be small. Example: It's 1960. ND = *250. Let's make MR 50 times larger than today (a woman was 50 times more likely to die than now). Since MR now is 0.3/100,000, that would be 15/100,000. Then, solving for NA: [* That's Beckwith's number - E] 250 = 15 100,000 or NA = (250)(100,000)/15 = 1,666,666 abortions 1.67 million abortions per year in 1960? If not, then abortion must have been even more dangerous. But this guessing isn't necessary, because we actually know the mortality rate from abortion in the 1950s and 60s: it was about 20 to 25 deaths per 100,000 procedures from both legal and illegal abortion. ("Pro-lifers" are absolutely correct in saying that illegal abortion was not much more risky than legal abortion in those years; the greater risk from an illegal procedure was offset by the fact that women having legal procedures were sicker than women having illegal ones. I will cite the references for this at the end.) So, solving for NA is easy: NA = (250)(100,000)/25 = 1,000,000 [editorial note: we can also deduce from this that the actual risk was about 75 times todays risk - E] And that's how we know that there were about a million abortions a year in the two decades before legalization. PS. Can't you reply to a post in the normal way? It's so much work trying to make your posts readable in a reply, it isn't worth it.
