Because usually proof of a woman's pregnancy shows up in time. Only completely oblivious parents don't notice their teenage daughter sprouting a big belly.

American obesity rates are so high now that it happens fairly regularly. At least one woman actually gave birth without realizing she was pregnant! (I imagine Republican sponsored so-called "sex education" had something to do with that.)

Secondly, who's going to notify the parents of a pregnancy if all the girl did was use an over the counter test and never went to the doctor?

Who's going to notify the parents of an abortion is all the girl did was use an over the counter abortificent and never went to the doctor? This is an argument used regularly against OTC abortificents, so I don't see any reason why a consistent stance wouldn't include pregnancy tests.

"Woman" is a noun. "Female" is an adjective. Every time I see the phrase "woman writer" it makes my blood boil.

While I'll admit the immediate reading of "women writer" is as someone who writes to women, the dictionaries I've just consulted all list "women" as an acceptable adjective meaning "female".

Boiling blood is not good for you. Getting upset over grammatical rules which can change, have changed, and will continue to change is an unhealthy habit.

Of course, this is coming from someone who deliberately misplaces the period when quoting because I think the correct punctuation is just bad.

Tell me, did German or Japanese POWs in WWII get trials? No. Did they have a right to habeas corpus? Of course not. They were prisoners of war. Why should a terrorist, who violates every portion of the Geneva Conventions, be afforded more than these soldiers, who at least fought in uniform of a recognized country? - Cosmo

Strawman. POW's in wwII were granted the rights of a POW as laid down in the Geneva convention. The Republicans are invalidating the Geneva convention. Suspected terrorists aren't being treated as POW's in any way or form. We're grabbing and torturing innocent men based on hearsay.

And, on top of that, the WWII POW's who WERE executed for warcrimes DID get trials and all the trimmings thereof, as laid down by the international agreements the Republicans are abrogating.

My point was a "stunt" would be doing something like jumping on the bull as it charged towards you; fitting with your definition, that would require some skill. Just getting hurt isn't particularly impressive.

Incorrect. The definition merely requires impressive daring.

Fascinating. So if Saddam Hussein never called himself a dictator, Newsweek shouldn't call him one either? - LeCastorWell, that came out of left field. Now you're equating lesbianism with totalitarianism? Your comment is several times as offensive as anything else here.

Wow, what a breathtaking misinterpretation of what LeCastor said. She said "Are you saying that just because someone doesn't overtly self-identify as something they clearly are, that means that nobody else is allowed to note that they are, in fact, clearly that thing?"

Out of an essentially infinite number of possible examples, she chose dictatorship - and it wasn't a coincidence like you're trying to claim, here.

Ah, the Gestapo is coming. This is just a way of setting the stage.

Well, there's a lot to respond to in these letters; bad logic seems to be almost endemic to them. But I want to address the most egregious and oft repeated, and the clearest example was here:

The author of this article states Theo van Gogh never would have been murdered if it hadn't been for Hirsi Ali.

Oh, right. It's Hirsi Ali's fault Theo van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim extremist. -- poeslygeia

Poeslygeia's "re-statement" simply does not follow from the premise. Any event has an almost infinite number of causes tracing right back to the big bang; but such causes do not establish blame. If Theo van Gogh had never been born, he couldn't have been murdered; that doesn't make his murder his mother's (or grandmother's) fault.

There is an almost continuous attack on Steinglass for supposedly absolving the murderer, however, that position is simply not in the article. I find the apparent position of many LW's that you're not allowed to answer "why" or to otherwise search for underlying causes to be preposterous and frankly pro-ignorance.

If both the left and the right continually attack the identity of Muslims (Islam) -- aren't we denying them the right to exist? We are essentially saying we don't want Muslims in the western world, or perhaps in the world at all.

I do not have tolerance for the denial of human rights. Some of those who do so are Muslim, but not all Muslims deny human rights and not all who deny human rights are Muslim (indeed, by the sheer scale of India's Hindu caste systems and China's totalitarianism, I doubt Muslims are even the majority). I find Golden Boy's crusade counter-productive, for it ignores the root problems in favor of blanket condemnations which conflate moderates with extremists.

Nevertheless, I will not tolerate terrorism and subjugation based on anybody's religion - or fear thereof, as we now face in the U.S..

My representative just voted to torture innocents. I'm not going to take that lying down.

I suspect they'll continue to be isolated attacks in Europe, America, and elsewhere for years until gradually becoming more common and deadly resulting in habitually, dispraportionate responses (ultimately, the only real effective-type) from the West. This will inflame the Muslim World even more of course. Further escallation will continue for 2 or 3 decades...

I like how you claim that disproportionate response is the only effective strategy and then immediately go on to point out how utterly ineffective it is.

Perhaps it's time we gave intelligent, proportionate responses another chance. For all the attention we pay them, it's not like these guys have ever done us any real damage. Even 9/11 is but a blip in the death rate, inconsequential compared to car accidents.

I think suicide bombers really throw a lot of westerners. You can't punish the dead. You can't dissuade the kamikaze through threat of death. Our big, dumb, tough guy act isn't going to accomplish a thing.