Using baby bottles as bombs.
On November 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the federal ban of partial-birth abortion.
Here's blog post from the Columbia Daily Tribune on John Danforth and his efforts to enshrine embryonic stem cell research and human cloning as constitutional rights in Missouri. One of his reasons for thinking its okay to kill human embryos follows:
"But we don't agree that they're people," he said. "We think that they're cells in a dish. And there's (never) been a person who's walked the Earth that's not been implanted in a mother. Never, in history. So cells in a dish aren't people."
Hmmm...... While Danforth claims to be "prolife" or at least against abortion, this type of argument could also be used to claim that unborn children who are implanted aren't "people." Couldn't a pro-choicer just as easily argue that, "We think they're fetuses in a womb. And there's never been a person who's walked the Earth that's not been in a woman's womb for at least 5 months. Never, in history. So fetuses in a womb less than 5 months aren't people." Or maybe even infanticide, "We think they're infants on the ground. And there's never been a person who's walked the Earth that lived less than 3 months after birth. Never, in history. So newborn infants aren't people." The fact that human embryos can be killed before they're allowed to continue developing isn't an argument which proves it's ok to kill them anymore than an argument that human infants can be killed before they can continue developing proves it's ok to kill human infants.