Yale Celebrates Abortion, Yipee!!!
From Moonbattery, all I can do is say wow…
Sphere: Related ContentFrom the Yale Daily News:
In commemoration of the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, the 35th anniversary of which is this month, the Reproductive Rights Action League at Yale (RALY), in conjunction with Yale Medical Students for Choice, demonstrated different abortion methods and techniques, answered questions students had about the procedures and encouraged students to be active in abortion-rights groups during last night’s presentation. The presentation was part of a week-long celebration of the 35th anniversary of the landmark decision. […]
[Medical student and pro-abortion activist Merritt] Evans and Rasha Khoury MED ‘08, another member of Medical Students for Choice, who said she plans to become a gynecologist and expects to perform abortions, went on to describe one of the most common abortion procedures, manual vacuum aspiration, which “creates suction to evacuate pregnancy,” Evans said. The technique is a good option because the device involved is reusable and relatively cheap, she said.
If life is cheap, death should be too.
“It’s not as scary as it seems. It’s just blood and mucus,” Khoury said, referring to the fetus remains in the device. She added, “You’ll be able to see arms and stuff, but still just miniscule.”
![[Valid RSS]](http://politicalpartypoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Wow. That is truly disturbing…and I thought some of the anti-abortion images were bad.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
The hard “pro-life” argument, that human life begins at conception, is unacceptable to me, not just because the idea of forcing a raped woman to give birth to the rapist’s child is repugnant, but because the idea of a fertilized egg being a human being is absurd. A fertilized egg is a protozoan with a human genetic code in the nucleus. There is nothing sacred about the human genetic code; it is in nearly every cell in the human body. That the protozoan grows into a human being is undoubted, but that leaves us with only vague criteria to decide when the line is crossed between animal life and human life. That there are only vague criteria doesn’t prove anything. There are vague criteria about lots of things in life. A religious belief that the fertilized egg possesses a soul, and thus is already fully human for that reason, provides a reasonable ground for a hard “pro-life” view; but since it is a religious belief, it cannot form the basis of a public law incumbent on everyone, who may be of various religious, and non-religious, persuasions. In Japan, abortion is common; but religious belief there, in Buddhism, allows that, although this is an evil, which should be atoned for by repentance and religious practices, the child will actually be reborn and is not permanently harmed.
On the other hand, even if we accept that the fertilized egg may be a person, this still leaves untouched what I consider to be the principal argument for “choice,” which is the argument of Roe v. Wade itself: Privacy. I say that human beings have a natural right, not a Constitutional right, but a natural right, which the courts are obliged to recognize under the Ninth Amendment, to privacy: the privacy of property — real and personal — and of person. And nothing is more private than our own bodies. A state with the considerable invasive power to police bodies, in particular women’s bodies in this case, is a state that will exercise its power, as it already does in the Income Tax regulations and the despicable war on drugs, to leave nothing else private. That is not the kind of state that we should wish to have. Feminists of a totalitarian and Stalinist bent, like Catharine MacKinnon, do not like the stated grounds of Roe v. Wade because, as good totalitarians, they do not believe in privacy.
Besides, the state is not an enterprise with a specific purpose — what has been called a “teleocracy,” the rule of some end. The state is merely that which protects the honest enterprise of its citizens, a “nomocracy,” a non-purposive Rule of Law. If abortion is an institution that is destructive of some good end, then the affairs of people who practice it will suffer, and the affairs of people who do not practice it will not suffer. We shall know them by their fruits. It is not the business of the state to second-guess such consequences, especially when it can be wrong and thus end up applying the coercive force of government, destroying people’s lives, for the sake of a moralistic error.