David Baerwald said
: : I can't speak for Andrea, but me, I'm afraid of you, and everyone who's either forgotten or never learned their history. �He who would sacrifice his freedom for security deserves neither, as Ben Franklin so succinctly put it.

Kevin G. said
: I don't suppose in Ben's day he was worried much about airliners full of innocent people crashing into buildings full of more innocent people now was he? �How do you suppose Ben might have felt about the freedoms of aborted babies? �Do you suppose he might have a problem with the following...

[Shafer's description of a partial-birth abortion here]

: This is perfectly legal in our society. �Do you have a problem with this or any other abortion for that matter, Dave?

: Let's talk about real freedom here. �What you're concerned with is absolutely meaningless in comparison.

: Kevin G.

I will jump in here to disagree with the conclusion that what David is talking about is meaningless in comparison to what Kevin G. and Shafer are talking about.  David is talking about a bill that, in the name of fighting terrorism, gives the federal government and law-enforcement agencies broader powers than they have ever held before.  The bill flew through the house and senate and was signed in a record-setting frenzy, riding hot on the heels of the events of 9/11.

I have seen many people state on the net that they don't mind if some freedoms are curtailed somewhat, in the name of fighting the terrorists.  Fine.  But Kevin, what would happen if one or more of the groups currently lobbying against the legality of abortions in the USA were to suddenly fall under the category of "terrorist group"?  

I say this without intentionally revealing my own stand on the issue of abortion per se.  What I want to bring up is that after years of hearing the rhetoric of some of the more militant despisers of abortion--those who advocate the bombing of the clinics, those who sponsor hit-lists on the internet, and much, much worse--it seems to me that the erosion of our freedom to speak could some day translate to a USA where you, Kevin, could be targetted for wiretaps, unannounced "visits," and worse, for little more than what you have said here on this page.  Easily.

Sure, on the one hand, if you are dragged from the womb and destroyed you have no freedoms at all.  Perhaps that is all you intended to say.  But on the other hand, the freedom to advocate for the unborn and to campaign against the current state of US law depends absolutely upon our freedom of speech.  The two issues are deeply intertwined.

Ben Franklin could not, as you say, have worried about planes hitting skyscrapers.  There are a great many things afoot today that Ben Franklin could not have worried about.  But cases do not alter principles, and the principle that the governed should have the freedom to speak, as well as the principle that in a Democracy the people need to keep the government on a pretty short leash--these things do not change.  

This month, the government's leash seems to have gotten a lot longer.  Who knows how far that thing can stretch?

Herring

"It only takes a single clown to turn a witch-hunt into a circus."