Hey, he may not have any idea about High School biology or the National Firearms Act but hey - "Smart" uber alles, right NRO?In the context of claiming that the real pro lifers are gun control proponents, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman’s current column denigrates the biological acumen of actual pro lifers because of Todd Akin’s appalling comment about “legitimate rape.” But Friedman is in no position look down his nose about ignorance: From his column:“Pro-life” can mean only one thing: “respect for the sanctity of life.” And there is no way that respect for the sanctity life can mean we are obligated to protect every fertilized egg in a woman’s ovary, no matter how that egg got fertilized, but we are not obligated to protect every living person from being shot with a concealed automatic weapon.There has never been, and never will be, a fertilized egg in any woman’s ovary. That’s high school biology. They don’t get fertilized there. That happens in the fallopian tube, after which the egg ceases and an embryo is formed. Perhaps he meant protect every embryo or fetus in a uterus. But that’s not what he wrote. Friedman should know better and so should his editors. Good grief, this is the New York Times!
Also, automatic weapons are already legally banned. He probably meant a concealed semi automatic weapon. There’s a difference. But what’s a little inaccuracy among friends?
Monday, October 29, 2012
National Review: still a clown car
Women's eggs can't get fertilized in fallopian tubes (without serious consequences) and fully automatic weapons are not illegal, despite the NRO's sneering how can Thomas Friedman be so ignorant column: