Because first there was this, now this.
I left this comment:
“These two are not the only ones who have trouble discussing this issue.”
Sounds like they were discussing the issue just fine. You don’t get out much, do you? This is how normal people talk, but I guess that doesn’t qualify as a “discussion.”
How convenient: when people don’t “discuss” things in a fashion you approve of, then they aren’t having a discussion at all, and you can feel all high and mighty, bitching about it.
I actually thought your column was Swiftian satire for a moment. “Why can’t we have a civil discussion over lunch about dismembering living beings and selling their organs??”
I guess you’re intentionally leaving out the fact that the case the led to Roe v. Wade was a lie. “Roe” had never been raped, and Dr. Nathansan cooked up the stats about “back alley abortions.”
Both factors, plus some highly dubious legal reasoning, helped win the case.
That both Nathansan and Roe later became pro-life doesn’t tell you anything?
More from my site
