West Virginia Bans Dismemberment Abortions, Leaves Other Methods to Murder Unborn Legal

Photo Credit: Credit Tomasz Kobosz
Photo Credit: Credit Tomasz Kobosz

CHARLESTON, W. Va. — Lawmakers in West Virginia have passed a bill that makes it illegal for abortionists to perform dilation and evacuation abortions (D&E) in the state, also known as dismemberment abortions.

H.B. 4004 and S.B. 10 are known as the “Unborn Child Protection From Dismemberment Abortion Act,” and make criminal “for any person to purposely perform or attempt to perform a dismemberment abortion and thereby kill an unborn child unless necessary to prevent serious health risk to the unborn child’s mother.”

H.B. 4004 defines a dismemberment abortion, a common procedure for second trimester abortions, as an act to “purposely to dismember a living unborn child and extract him or her one piece at a time from the uterus through use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments that, through the convergence of two rigid levers, slice, crush, or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body to cut or rip it off.”

The bill passed the House on Monday 86-13 while S.B. 10 passed the Senate 24-9 on Feb. 17.

While outlawing dismemberment abortions with the exception of the mother’s health, the legislation notes that it does not apply to suction aspiration abortions, which are commonly performed in the first trimester to rip the child from the womb using a vaccuum-like device.

“The term ‘dismemberment abortion’ does not include an abortion which uses suction to dismember the body of the unborn child by sucking fetal parts into a collection container, although it does include an abortion in which a dismemberment abortion is used to cause the death of an unborn child, but suction is subsequently used to extract fetal parts after the death of the unborn child,” it reads.

The bill was debated for less than an hour before coming up for a vote, with some opposing the legislation in stating that it interferes with the patient-doctor relationship.

  • Connect with Christian News

“It’s not any of your business, and yet, you’re making it your business,” Del. Nancy Guthrie, D-Kanawha, asserted.

Del. Kayla Kessinger, R-Fayette, said that protecting those destined for death should be indeed be the business of the state.

“We are not just talking about another limb on our body. We’re talking about a completely separate individual that has a right to life and that’s why it’s our business,” she argued.

“We cannot just turn out back on those persons and say that they can legally, without repercussions, legally and physically be torn apart,” Del. Tom Fast, R-Fayette, likewise declared.

The bill now heads to the desk of Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, who identifies as pro-life, but has not indicated whether he will sign or veto the legislation. Last year, Tomblin vetoed a bill banning abortions past 20 weeks gestation over concerns that it would be ruled unconstitutional. His veto was overruled by a majority vote.

Nearly 60 million babies have been murdered in the womb since abortion was “legalized” in 1973 via the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade.

In an introductory lecture to his course on obstetrics in 1854, Philadelphia Dr. Hugh Lennox Hodge explained that if a woman were to come to a medical doctor in pursuit of an abortion, “he must, as it were, grasp the conscience of his weak and erring patient and let her know in language not to be misunderstood that she is responsible to her Creator for the life of the being within her.”

“So low, gentleman, is the moral sense of community on this subject. So ignorant are even the greater number of individuals, that even mothers in many instances shrink not at the commission of this crime, but will voluntarily destroy their own progeny, in violation of every natural sentiment, and in opposition to the laws of God and man,” he said.

“Perhaps there are few individuals in extensive practice as obstetricians who have not had frequent applications made to them by the fathers or mothers of unborn children (respectable and polite in their general appearance and manners), to destroy the fruit of illicit pleasure under the vain hope of preserving their reputation by this unnatural and guilty sacrifice.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • jael2

    It’s another political year, and politicians are once again attempting to show the public how pro-life they are by passing legislation, that never ends abortion, just certain procedures. I recall, when legislation was passed to outlaw the so called “partial birth’ abortion, to supposedly stop late term abortions. Millions were raised through certain pro-life groups. And for all the back-slapping, and self promotion by “pro-life” politicians, it didn’t stop these late term child killers. What it did do, was allow the abortionists to “tweak” their procedures, by injecting digoxin into the baby’s heart, to ensure “fetal demise”. Then the dead child comes down the birth canal dead rather than alive, to have their brains evacuated, and then pulled out. I suppose with this legislation, mid-trimester abortions will continue, and rather than a D&E, the women will be dilated over a couple of days, and then the babies will be birthed into a toilet at the clinic. They will still be dead nonetheless.
    The only legislation that would please the Lord, would be a total abolition of abortion. Without a revival of this spiritually dead nation, the bloodshed will continue, until the Lord stops it.

  • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

    At least its a step in the right direction

    • jael2

      When I first began in pro-life ministry 27 years ago, I too, was hopeful when new legislation was passed. But clearly, incremental changes in abortion, has still produced 60 million dead little boys and girls. And those numbers don’t include all the babies that have been killed by chemical abortifacients ( pill, Norplant, IUD, morning after etc. ) It’s mind boggling when you think of what this holocaust has produced.

      • gizmo23

        The pro life movement rarely does anything to stop or slow the abortion rate. Their concern is with political donations and power, nothing more

      • acontraryview

        “pill, Norplant, IUD”

        In what way do these kill babies?

        • jael2

          Thank you for your question.
          The pill works as both a contraception and an abortifacient. The primary mechanism can keep an egg from being fertilized. But there is also what is called break through ovulation, when an egg can be fertilized, but due to the changes in the womb, it makes it a hostile environment for the newly conceived child to attach, and he/she are expelled. Norplant, “the patch”, Depo-Provera, etc., all have the same mechanism. The IUD, which is hostile to the uterus, can cause infections, and also keep a newly fertilized egg from growing. There have been babies actually born with an IUD embedded in their bodies.
          The bottom line: If one identifies themselves as a Christian, and rightly believes that life begins at conception, then any of these drugs/devices should be avoided at all costs.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That’s an excellent description, but you do realize that pro-aborts are science-deniers, do you not? Most of them will deny the settled science that human life begins at human conception. In that way, they can deny the victims of their barbaric ideology without having to change it.

          • acontraryview

            If a fertilized egg is unable to attach to the uterus, there is no “human life”.

            “Most of them will deny the settled science that human life begins at human conception.”

            Please cite the “settled science” that human life begins when an egg is fertilized.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Of course a human zygote is a human life. You seem to be the product of a dumbed-down educational system. I suggest you give your high school diploma back, because your biology teacher failed you miserably.

            http://www .lifenews .com/2015/01/08/41-quotes-from-medical-textbooks-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/

            Now, please provide a source that proves that you have a brain. Also, please cite a source that says that you understand logic. Also, please cite a source that proves that you are not a science-denier.

            I notice that you do not bring your silly science-phobic arguments over to Live Action News, where your “logic” will be crushed. 🙂

          • acontraryview

            I think it’s adorable that you provide a list of cherry-picked quotes, many of which do not state that human life begins at human conception, from a pro-life website as evidence of “settled science”.

            Believe as you like, but it is certainly not “settled science” that human life begins at the time that an egg is fertilized.

            As for the rest of the drivel in your post, it merely shows your lack of character and desperation.

          • Quantz

            Counting down to when he eventually calls you a Jew gasser and/or slave trader and/or baby killer. I have his playbook memorized.

          • acontraryview

            His repertoire is fairly limited.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            So, once again, you call for a citation, you get 41 peer-reviewed scientific ones in return, and you just deny them, because they hurt your feewings and make you uncomfortable. Got it.

          • acontraryview

            “you get 41 peer-reviewed scientific ones in return, and you just deny them, because they hurt your feewings and make you uncomfortable. ”

            LOL. You clearly did not read the link you provided me.

          • acontraryview

            “Baby” defined: “an extremely young child”

            Your examples do not meet the criteria of killing a “baby”.

            “There have been babies actually born with an IUD embedded in their bodies. ”

            I was unable to find any such examples. Would you please provide the actual source information for your claim?

          • Lids

            You are the knit picking fascist that creates fanatical pro-choice people. Life is hostile and not every sperm is sacred.

        • Lids

          They don’t.

    • gizmo23

      The pro life movement does little that is effective…except collect money for politicians

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Saved another baby yesterday from the sidewalk, Giz – another last minute save. That’s 3 in the last two weeks, no thanks to you and your pals. Left up to you, those 3 babies would be dead right now. Enjoy your Eternity in Hell – you have earned it.

        • Lids

          Glad you saved the baby WGC, sincerely. You can stop with the hyperbole and hysteria anytime now.
          Now you should just let Jesus decide if gizmo should go to hell or not. Your detestable and improper arrogance is what pushes people farther away from faith.
          Your secular pro-life friends are too cowardly to call you out on it.
          –Stay sweet

        • gizmo23

          You enjoy the idea of people being tortured forever. That’s how your perverted mind works

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Not me, Giz! If I enjoyed that, I would stand by silently smiling at your future. I’m warning you just as my Savior would warn you – I want you in Heaven, Giz, not in Hell. But, it IS your choice: God will not force you into Heaven against your will, OK? Have a great night but think about what I am saying, and don’t be mad at me – take it up with Jesus – He is the One Who talked about it more than anyone else in the Bible.

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    “It’s not any of your business, and yet, you’re making it your business,” Del. Nancy Guthrie, D-Kanawha, asserted.

    Spoken like a good Democrat – one of the same arguments used to justify slavery.

    • acontraryview

      i have never where that argument was used to justify slavery. Do you have any citations?

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        slav·er·y (slā′və-rē, slāv′rē)

        n. pl. slav·er·ies

        1. The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner’s control, especially in involuntary servitude.

        2.

        a. The practice of owning slaves.

        b. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.

        3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.

        4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

        Slavery was the gross justification for secession: the North was to leave the South alone when it came to the institution of slavery, and “mind their own business.”

        On an individual level, it was the de facto mode of operation: some landowners made the personal choice to own slaves, and, since this was legal, it was, by definition, “no one’s business,” but their own.

        • Quantz

          So. No citations. Got it, thanks.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Citation of the definition of slavery was provided. The fact that you are not intelligent enough to know what a citation is, or the fact that the expectation of privacy was also associated with slavery, is no warrant against the validity of the truth claim.

          • Quantz

            You were asked to provide a citation, not a definition. We all know how good you are at moving goalposts. But please, from now on, try to stop diverting people’s attention with obvious deception. And now, maybe you will answer acontraryview’s question. Citation, please, of Ms. Guthrie’s statement used to justify slavery, as was requested.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            No citation is necessary when the definition of slavery includes an expectation of privacy. The fact that you fail logic is no warrant against sufficient evidence being supplied.

            Furthermore, I DID provide two citations of statements made, one in a court ruling from the period, of an expectation of privacy, but of course neither ACV nor you will accept those because they contradict your ideology and neither one of you has the intellectual honesty to admit that you have been called out and made fools of by an actual legal citation from the period in question.

            A reasonable observer will conclude that you are irrational.

          • Quantz

            You were asked by acontraryview to cite where the statement “It’s not any of your business, and yet, you’re making it your business” was used to justify slavery.

            Instead, you gave nothing remotely associated with that sentiment at all, got all huffy, and in your trademark style called ACV a slaver – which you have an annoying tendency to do with anyone who disagrees with you (and if you want citations for THAT, I’d be only too happy to provide at LEAST a dozen of them).

            Also, you said: “No citation is necessary when the definition of slavery includes an expectation of privacy.” But the definition of slavery makes no mention of privacy at all. You further go on to say that ACV and I will reject that because it is contrary to our ideologies, but no, we reject it because it’s simply false, there is no mention of “privacy” in the definition of slavery.

            Finally, you say: “Neither one of you has the intellectual honesty to admit that you have been called out and made fools of by an actual legal citation from the period in question.” This is BS because you cannot make “fools” of people with information you make up, information that is false, and information that justifies your opinion and nothing more.

            Otherwise, great job.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Haha – yes an actual court ruling from the time period using legality and privacy as a basis for slavery is not a citation using legality and privacy as a basis for slavery! Haha – I love it! Pro-aborts are SO much fun!

            Hey, are you going to have a meltdown over here? I need to go save some babies from your pals, so if you could schedule it for later, I could get my popcorn ready. Thanks!

          • Quantz

            “Haha – yes an actual court ruling from the time period using legality and privacy as a basis for slavery is not a citation using legality and privacy as a basis for slavery! Haha – I love it!”

            You’ve muddied the waters and confused the issues so many times that it’s necessary to take you back to the very beginning rather than watch you rewrite history over and over.

            Your first message, obnoxious though it was, was short enough that we can quote it here in its entirety:

            “It’s not any of your business, and yet, you’re making it your business,” Del. Nancy Guthrie, D-Kanawha, asserted.

            Spoken like a good Democrat – one of the same arguments used to justify slavery.”

            Enter acontraryview, who asked you, “I have never seen where that argument was used to justify slavery. Do you have any citations?”

            So look at what’s happening. You have made a claim that something being no one’s business was an argument used to justify slavery. Here are some parallel statements, equally vague and strange in their own way as that one:

            “It’s not any of your business…making it your business” – one of the same arguments used to justify not revealing dress size.
            “It’s not any of your business…making it your business” – one of the same arguments used to justify buying Christmas gifts.
            “It’s not any of your business…making it your business” – one of the same arguments used to justify how much Oprah weighs this week.
            “It’s not any of your business…making it your business” – one of the same arguments used to justify not broadcasting my street address.

            In short, you’re taking her statement which is a simple request for people to keep personal matters to themselves, and trying to equate it to the justification of slavery. And so ACV comes along and asks quite reasonably where such a statement has ever been used to justify slavery, and for you to cite examples.

            Your responses were varied and hilarious.
            First, you give a definition of slavery, and no one knows why.
            Next, you make a REAL reach and say that the north didn’t leave the south alone making that a matter of not minding their own business, ergo slavery (???). Or something. Some kind of failed comparison between slavery and abortion, neither of which is comparable in any sense.
            Then you try to bring privacy into it for reasons known only to yourself as privacy is not an issue related to the definition of slavery. Minding one’s own business is not the same thing as privacy.

            In short, if you continue to compare every single thing you disapprove of to slavery, you’re going to be viewed as more and more off the rails. It’s a bad comparison, and you should discard it.

            “Pro-aborts are SO much fun!”

            I don’t see any pro-aborts around here. There are a few pro-choice people though. Time perhaps to call you an “anti-choicer”.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Look, could you please save your meltdown for Friday night at 8 pm ET? I am busy saving the victims of your ideology.

            And, yes, an actual citation of an actual court record from the actual time period in question regarding expectations of privacy for slavery is a perfect analogue to the same expectation of privacy in abortion.

            The fact that you don’t like that I came through with a great citation does not make it anything but a great citation. the fact that it makes you and your fellow ideologues look like modern-day slavers does not mean that you and your pals aren’t the equivalent of modern-day slavers. I’m sorry it hurts your feeewings, but please save your meltdown for tomorrow night. I want to prepare decent appetizers for the folks I am inviting over to watch your posts. 🙂

          • Quantz

            See if the people you are inviting over know the difference between privacy and minding one’s own business, because you clearly do not.

            By the way, I have no “ideology”. That is your area.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            No, I don’t think that anyone will respect any differences between “mind your own business when I’m whipping slaves” and “mind your own business when I’m killing babies in the womb,” hehe. Just like I don’t think anyone will respect any difference between you and a 19th century slaver. 🙂

            Sure, you are not an ideologue, hehe. 🙂

          • Quantz

            Nope. Not an ideologue. Not sure if you have noticed but all the rhetoric and hyperbole pouring out of you has all been stuff of your own invention. Slaves? Your gig. Killing babies? All yours. All I have been doing is pointing it out every time you say something over the top absurd. Which is practically every sentence. Guess what? All the people in the world you disagree with aren’t slavers and baby killers. Yet it seems to be your attack of choice in practically every instance. Care to offer an explanation? I think YOUR meltdown would be best enjoyed over appetizers by your guests (poor buggers).

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Look, I realize that it is difficult for you when facts and logic and science – and one heck of a great citation – get in the way of your feelings and ideology. The only way for you to deny the victims of your ideology is to deny the facts, logic, and science. You are free to hold to your delusions, but please do not expect the rest of us to be anything but entertained by them.

            As for the innocent preborn babies, 3000 of them died today in America, thanks to enablers like you.

          • Quantz

            You’ve been told many times, and not just by me, that you don’t possess scientific consensus. Now just get over it like a good boy and try to accept that what you have is what everyone else has – an opinion, and no one is bound to it except yourself.

            Correction. 3000 babies did NOT die today. 3000 fetuses may, however, have been terminated, and I assume no responsibility for any of them.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, I give you 41 citations for the humanity of the life in the womb, and you say “but there is one guy on RationalWiki who has a different opinion,” and then label that “lack of consensus.” 🙂

            As for “baby” vs “fetus,” take it up with the CDC, NIH, Mayo Clinic, and every OB of every pregnant woman, including your mom’s.

            “”The sub-human, that biologically seemingly complete creation of nature with hands, feet and a kind of brain, with eyes and mouth, is nevertheless a completely different, dreadful creature. He is only a rough copy of a human being, with human-like facial traits but nonetheless morally and mentally lower than an animal… For all that bare a human face are not equal. (Pamphlet published by the Race Settlement Main Office, Germany, 1942)”

            “Fetuses, especially those as old as five or six months, elicit our sympathy… because they look disconcertingly like people… But, this sympathy is misplaced… While [it] may, perhaps, possess some flickering of sensation, or some capacity to feel pain, this is equally true… of creatures like fish or insects… a proper respect for the right to life requires that it not be respected where it does not exist.” (Commentary on “Can The Fetus Be An Organ Farm?”)”

            As for taking responsibility for them:

            “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

            So, yes, tell that to your Maker when you meet Him: “But, God, I only argued against pro-lifers all day long, and advocated for the baby killers, I never personally killed a preborn baby. Can’t you PLEASE let me into Heaven?!?” I cannot wait to see that one.

          • acontraryview

            Great job.

          • Quantz

            Thanks, but it’s really not very difficult.

          • Semp

            Sisters

        • acontraryview

          So you have no citations where the rational you provided was used to justify slavery. You simply provide your inferences. Got it. Thanks.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            False. No citation necessary when the definition of slavery includes an expectation to privacy.

            So, you have no logic. Got it. Thanks.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Hey ACV, I was reading some diaries of slaveowners – brutal stuff – and I stumbled across an interesting policy article:

        http://www .thepublicdiscourse .com/2013/12/11683/

        Anyway, inside of this article was a direct reference to the privacy issue! It’s obvious from the legality of slavery and the privacy expectation of running one’s own farm or plantation that “mind your own business” was a position held by all slaveowners, but it was interesting to see it spelled out explicitly in a couple of places here – see this excerpt:

        “Before announcing his support for abortion rights during his bid for the presidency in 1984, Jesse Jackson argued in a 1977 National Right to Life Committee Newsletter that if

        ‘one accepts the position that life is private, and therefore you have the right to do with it as you please, one must also accept the conclusion of that logic. That was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned.’

        Jackson’s comparison was not arbitrary. In a famous antebellum slave case, State v. Mann (1829), Judge Thomas Ruffin considered whether a man could be charged with assault for shooting a slave girl in the back as she ran away from him. A North Carolina jury had found the action “cruel and unwarrantable, and disproportionate to the offense committed by the slave.” According to Judge Ruffin, however, the institution of slavery cordoned off a realm of private violence that the state was powerless to proscribe. The “wrath of a master,” Ruffin maintained, “was generally practiced with impunity, by reason of its privacy.” The right to abortion is often defended in terms of a more general right to privacy, and this is precisely the parallel Jackson drew between slavery and abortion in his editorial.”

        Anyway, I thought you might find that interesting, and please watch out for the slaveowner diaries – they are about as brutal as reading descriptions of abortions. Have a great night, and thanks for the question!

        • acontraryview

          So you are suggesting that Jesse Jackson made the argument that slavery is OK because owning slaves it’s nobody’s business if someone owns slaves.

          Perhaps you missed this part of the case:

          “Ruffin, however, made it clear that his opinion was a legal one, and that his sympathy lay with Lydia. He wrote that “the struggle, too, in the Judge’s own breast between the feelings of the man, and the duty of the magistrate is a severe one, presenting strong temptation to put aside such questions, if it be possible. It is useless however, to complain of things inherent in our political state. And it is criminal in a court to avoid any responsibility which the laws impose.”

          So, no, Ruffin was not justifying slavery with the argument of: “It’s not any of your business, and yet, you’re making it your business,”

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            No citation is necessary when the definition of slavery includes an expectation of privacy. The fact that you fail logic is no warrant against sufficient evidence being supplied.

            Furthermore, I DID provide two citations of statements made, one in a court ruling from the period, of an expectation of privacy, but of course you will not accept those because they contradict your presupposed ideology and you do not have the intellectual honesty to admit that you have been called out and made a fool of by an actual legal citation from the period in question. (Precisely the same argument used by pro-aborts: it’s legal and none of your business.)

            A reasonable observer will conclude that you are irrational. And the modern-day equivalent of a slaver.

          • acontraryview

            “one in a court ruling from the period”

            No where in the court ruling is there a statement that justifies slavery on the basis of it not being anyone’s business.

            “A reasonable observer will conclude that you are irrational.”

            Based upon your posts, i would certainly not trust your opinion regarding reasonableness.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            What level of absurdity do you have to descend to to come to the conclusion that “actual court evidence for an expectation of privacy on slavery” was not “mind your own business” on slavery?The intellectual gymnastics that you have to go through to not admit you were wrong must keep you in good shape – in the padded rooms.

            But, then, it would make you uncomfortable to find out that slavers used the same argument for owning black people that you use for supporting abortion.

            Thanks for making my point!

          • Quantz

            He didn’t make your point. You keep making ours. You are unreasonable, illogical and are a one-trick pony – everyone who disagrees with you is a baby killing slave trader.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            No, every pro-abort channels baby killing slave traders. 🙂

          • Quantz

            Is this a contest to see how many uses of hyperbole you can squeeze into a single sentence?

            “Pro-abort”, “baby killing” and “slave traders” without even pausing for breath. That’s impressive in a terrifying sort of way. Your mind must be a chamber of horrors.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “”Pro-abort”, “baby killing” and “slave traders” without even pausing for breath.”

            If the jackboot and whip fit you, wear them proudly!

            “Your mind must be a chamber of horrors.”

            No, but your local abortion mill certainly is!

          • Quantz

            Jackboots and whips, huh? Sure sounds a lot closer to your ideologies. I’m a lot more content to live and let live.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Jackboots and whips, huh? Sure sounds a lot closer to your ideologies.”

            False. YOU are the one making the same arguments in favor of abortion that slavers and Jew gassers made in favor of their pet “causes.” Don’t project your callousness onto others – it isn’t nice.

            “I’m a lot more content to live and let live.”

            Except when it comes to preborn babies. By supporting abortion “rights,” you are NOT in favor of “let live” for them.

            Thanks for stepping into that one – that is the farthest I have hit a softball before. 🙂

          • Quantz

            False yourself. The only arguments I have made in favour of abortion are the ones that you made up in your mind and projected onto me. Don’t project your imagination onto others – it isn’t nice. So this is what it’s come to – in the absence of anything I have said, you’ve taken it upon yourself to decide FOR me what my beliefs are. Just like a good Christian fundamentalist.

            And now you’ve added that I am a gasser of Jews to the ever-growing list of complete absurdities. This is you hitting a softball out of the park, huh? A legend in your own mind in other words. Better luck next time – I am into reality, you can only make up hate based situations and congratulate yourself on them. Sad, sad, sad.

          • acontraryview

            If you can’t provide a citation where slavery was justified with the statement “It’s not any of your business”, then you can’t. No worries.

            “But, then, it would make you uncomfortable to find out that slavers used the same argument for owning black people that you use for supporting abortion.”

            When have I ever used the argument “It’s not any of your business” as an a rationale for the legality of abortion?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            OK, so I gave you two proofs – one by definition and the other by an actual court ruling from the period in question – that the expectation of privacy, i.e., “MYOB,” was used in both slavery and now abortion.

            So, after calling for such a citation, and then getting one, your only avenue to save further embarrassment is to just deny the proofs and citation. Because, if you accept the citation, then you would be left with the uncomfortable result that you are using some of the same arguments in favor of abortion as slavers. And that would be too difficult for you – so, you are not man enough to just admit you were wrong, more proof that you are not a genuine truth-seeker but merely an ideologue.

          • acontraryview

            No, you have provided no citations of that rationale being directly used to support slavery. You have provided your interpretation of other words. That is not the same thing. Yet, you are not man enough to admit that. Unfortunate.

            You also don’t appear to be man enough to admit that I have never used the argument “it’s not any of your business” as a rationale for the legality of abortion, despite your accusation that i have. Also unfortunate.

          • acontraryview

            Please see the response from Quantz above. You have been unable to prove your point.