Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RobbyS
the extreme position would be to ban abortion in every case." Life" of the mother is a bigger loophole than you seem to concede.

Please clip and paste where I said any such thing.

It would cover all medical emergencies. Rape, incest, and certain "health" are all pure judgement calls.

But that's all beside the point if creating these extreme laws which are doomed from the start just get shot down.

Which would you rather have--a sweeping law banning all abortions that gets shot down and doesn't save a single human child, or a minor adjustment that saves actual lives and leads to later adjustments that will save more and pave the way for REALLY ending abortion?

We have to live in the real world, folks.

114 posted on 02/28/2006 7:03:15 PM PST by Darkwolf377 (No respect for conservatives? That's free speech. No respect for liberals? That's hate speech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]


To: Darkwolf377

The real world is full of surprises. This new law is far less rigorous than the Texas law voiced by Roe v. Wade and it reflects actual practice in the state today. The message needs to be got out that this is the way it should be settled: state by state. The overthrow of Roe has never meant anything more than a return to local option. The Republican response should always be: Let the people decide, whether it be a matters of abortion or gay marriage or prayers in the schools.


646 posted on 02/28/2006 9:06:35 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson