Comments | michaelmink: Roe v. Wade (a response to someone who didn't allow comments)

michaelmink

Roe v. Wade (a response to someone who didn't allow comments)

Oct 13, 2011 19:05

I saw this quote on an LJ that I see, though the author did not allow comments on it. The context was a deeply negative reaction to a pending initiative in Mississippi that would define personhood in a way that would limit what is known as "reproductive rights" in some circles, and "abortion" in others ( Read more... )

Comments 5

lunden_otter October 13 2011, 23:14:55 UTC

People really arn't tired of Debate.

They just hunger for intellegent debate...

Problem is, that takes work.....

We as Americans kinda don't like work.

doronjosama October 14 2011, 01:32:36 UTC

I should have said "argue" and not "debate". I enjoy debate, but I am quite tired of arguments. I'm getting old and am not as interested in being flamed online as I used to be when I was younger. ^_^;

michaelmink October 14 2011, 01:42:46 UTC

Heh. The dividing line between an argument and a debate is a fairly fine one, and usually revolves around whether someone is discussing the relative merits of sports teams. Trust me on that point.

I rather hope you didn't consider this post a "flame," as such.

doronjosama October 14 2011, 01:49:16 UTC

I mostly just knew if I allowed comments on the post in question, I would get flames. *shrug* It is what happens on the internet, it seems.

fionacat October 14 2011, 06:52:20 UTC

I like how in Scottish common law, abortion was defined as a criminal offence unless performed for 'reputable medical reasons' until The Abortion Act, 1967.

The last significant change was the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990.