My response answers the question for me right now.

I went straight for the pocketbook, and you didn't like it.

Ask not what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran

Question asked and answereed above. Twice. Once by me.

The legal concept known as EX POST FACTO --

Makes no difference to me that you keep embarrassing yourself with your lack of basic knowledge. Or reading ability, apparently.

But I would think it matters to you. 

"The nature of an ideology is not determined by majority vote—but by logic... The logic of environmentalism leads to a society without technology... even if various environmentalists would deny this." Ayn Rand, 1971

O.J.: Let me see if I understand your point. Are you asking if women who had abortions prior to Roe v. Wade would be prosecuted? I'd want to know what the law said on the issue at the time. To be fair, one must argue this strictly from a legal perspective. Was abortion named as a form of murder? Who was held liable? The doctor or the mother-to-be? And I don't think that the statute of limitations argument holds any water.

Oddjob you win the cigar for the most asinine question of the day.

To collect see Slick willie, he will give it to you personally.

Jesus Loves You

I thought most conservatives were against "out of wedlock" pregnancies? Doesn't this add to the moral decay of the country?

Most conservatives are against out of wedlock pregnancies.  Because it does cause problems in society.  Children of single parent homes have far greater problems than children from two-parent homes.

However, anyone who is also pro-life has to acknowledge that a woman pregnant out of wedlock is doing the right thing by having the baby.  Not necessarily keeping and raising the child herself, but giving him the chance at life.

Do you get jerks who think pregnant women who aren't married should be shuttled off to an island somewhere?  Yeah.  But there are jerks in all walks of life.

The notion that it's better to kill a child is just wrong.

All women should have the ability to choose their own options, correct?

With the rare (as in less than 3% of all abortions) instance where a child is conceived because of rape and/or incest, a woman does have a choice.  She can choose not to have sex at all (abstain) or have sex and contracept/not contracept and risk that she might get pregnant.  Condoms and pills do not have a 100% success rate at preventing pregnancy (same for preventing STDs).  She can also choose to have a relationship with a decent man, or a scumbag.  Women have lots of choices.

But after the woman willfully engages in a sexual act that creates another separate, unique human being, she no longer has the right to choose if that wholly separate individual has the right to life or not because it might inconvenience her.

I also believe that abortion laws unjustly deny men their parental rights.  If a man gets a woman pregnant, doesn't want the child, but she has him and wants child support - the man more often than not has to pony up.

If a man gets a woman pregnant and she doesn't want the child, but he does, she can go and have an abortion and he doesn't have any legal recourse to protect his rights as the father of that child.

All abortion (and contraception, ultimately) have done is taken the onus off men to treat women respectfully and to take responsibility for the welfare of a woman and her child.  It has also stopped holding women accountable for shacking up with abusive losers rather than finding a suitable man to support her.

In the grand scheme of things, out of wedlock births are not ideal, but they're not even in the same universe as the evil known as abortion.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Why name any one person? If you want to name one to personalize your little Q & A, perhaps you would like to use my daughter, how's that? I'm pretty sure that my grandchildren  wouldn't mind if you did.

Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke

In response:

..."out of wedlock pregnancy no longer carries the social stigma it once did."

Because of Palin's kid? I thought most conservatives were against "out of wedlock" pregnancies? Doesn't this add to the moral decay of the country?

As for your last thoughts...I'm glad you had a choice. All women should have the ability to choose their own options, correc

1. The fact that out of wedlock pregnancy no longer carries a social stigma has nothing to do with the fact that Sarah Palin's daughter got pregnant out of wedlock. What a stupid suggestion, O.J. As if all of a sudden conservatives decided that sex outside of marriage is okay because Sarah Palin was the Republican candidate for V.P. Conservatives such as myself have always been opposed to sex outside of marriage. This doesn't mean that we think it won't happen or that we turn our backs on unwed mothers. There but for the grace of God go I. But our society as a whole has abandoned the idea that sex should be reserved for marriage - primarily as a result of the availability of birth control. Once young single men and women got used to the idea that they could have sex without the consequences of pregnancy, the moral underpinnings were forgotten. This is where the moral decay began. When marriage became a mere formality, sex became a national sport, and the idea of children living in a traditional family with a mother and father who were committed to each other became just another "option".

2. Having a choice: I was offered an option. There was no choice to be made. In fact, I was very upset that my Ob-Gyn suggested that I could have an abortion if I wanted. Even if I had developed Rubella and my unborn baby was effected, I would have continued with my pregnancy. I never felt it was my "choice" to decide whether my child should be allowed to be born. I don't believe any woman has the right to decide to kill her unborn child as an "option" except in the case where the mother's life may be in imminent jeopardy. In fact, I don't think I'd even want to contemplate making a "choice". You know, the abortion crowd always likes to point out that, for many women, the "choice" is a difficult decision to make. Why is that? Shouldn't be if one truly believes that the unborn child is not a human being. We're all better off when women - who are the ones who nurture life itself - aren't given this "choice" to make.

P.S. Since this has turned into a "dead horse" discussion, I'm done.