But it is pushed out of the body because otherwise it would be too damn big to ever come out.

Actually it is pretty obvious that birth means very little in terms of when life begins. So I am very okay with banning ALL abortions after the first trimester.

And I'm okay with forcing women, and strapping them down onto a bed, and strapping their hands down to their sides to make sure the live baby is protected from the angry mobbish women baby killer until the baby is born.

And then the women should be thrown in jail for being a danger to a live person, with one exception.

The "mother" should be forced to work and pay off the state's costs in raising the child. And the child as it grows should be protected from meeting with its mother. And basically told what a horrible bitch the mother is.

So let's recap:

1) After the first trimester ALL abortions are outlawed

2) Women caught seeking an abortion (perhaps a google search) are imprisoned in a hospital and strapped to a gurney until birth.

3) After the birth, the baby is taken from mother and never to see her again

4) Mother is billed for all of this, and mother is forced to pay state's cost in raising baby.

5) Baby is told Mom is a cold hearted bitch that tried to kill her.

After all, women are basically irresponsible sex freaks and baby killers. The woman had a chance to use birth control prior to conception. If the mother didn't use birth control she still has a chance for emergency birth control or a first trimester abortion.

After that there is another person present and mother is just a cold hearted bitch trying to kill another person and abandon her financial responsibilities.

So yes, by attempting murder, mother should be tossed in jail, but at the least should be forced to give up child and pay for its raising.

THAT would be in the best interest of the child, and we know how all you feminists insist on courts doing what is in the best interest of the child.

(First, I am actually pro-choice and think the decision was wrong, and I am trying to make a point about "best interest of the XXX" tests that basically enable judges to do anything they want constitutional or not.)

But I think a calf, giraffe, pony, ... is capable of standing up on its feet and finding mom.

I think it's pretty well known that in contrast to other mammals similar in other regards to humans (like other primates) babies don't yet have the physical or neurological development to enable them to survive on their own. They have to come out because our "intelligent designer" apparently forgot to create the "exit hatch" big enough for a fully developed toddler to emerge without killing the mother.

Evolution - August 1996: The love of an erectus mother

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199608/0078.html

Effectively, if humans are a fundamentally precocial species, our gestation is (or should be) 21 months. However, no mother could possibly pass a year old baby's head through the birth canal. Thus, human babies are born "early" to avoid the death of the mother. Walker and Shipman write:

"Humans are simply born too early in their development, at the time when their heads will still fit through their mothers' birth canals. As babies' brains grow, during this extrauterine year of fetal life, so do their bodies. About the time of the infant's first birthday, the period of fetal brain growth terminates, coinciding with the beginnings of speech and the mastery of erect posture and bipedal walking."

(Walker and Shipman won the General Prize in the 1997 Rhone-Poulenc Prize for Science Books, the most prestigious award for science writing in english. Chapter 10, Skeleton Keys speaks to this topic. Try reading it LeCastor. Try reading!)

Or in 3rd grade language for the lawyers amongst us:

Human development - gestation and birth

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/development.html

If you don't like this, then take it up with the intelligent designer.

Note to LeCastor, .... (all I have to see is "LeCastor" to know the comment is ill-informed, ill-intended, biased, and futile to engage in conversation with. Cheers!)

That's brilliant Laurel, and thank you for passing that along. If the "editors" asked me, your letter would be an editors' choice.

I find it remarkable that so many of Broadsheet's blogrolled blogs, like Pandagon, that are so adamant about keeping the government off our bodies, are also so adamantly pushing a mandatory Gardasil vaccine bill that specifically mandates the government to inject foreign, unknown, dubious substances into our bodies.

As recently as two days ago, Amanda Marcotte was declaring that it is misogynistic to be against Gardasil.

http://pandagon.net/2007/04/19/take-my-uterus-please/

And why does Pandagon wish Gardasil to be injected into adolescents? Because they explicitly have an agenda where women can have as much sex as possible. I don't think that's such a horrible agenda, I just note how their agenda takes importance over the civil liberty agenda of "keep the government off our bodies."

Why does Broadsheet blogroll Pandagon? What does Pandagon actually have to offer besides illogic and authoritarianism in the name of feminism?