Replies

Magnus:

I will check out the 1995 law and deal with that later.

In the meantime, let's address this: "How naive, of course there are flaws. No law, or anything else shaped by man, is perfect. The real question is whether it will do more good than harm. Waiting periods and parental consent requirements reduce abortions."

I wrote: ALL isn't against parental notification.

Again Magnus: ALL isn't against parental notification or waiting periods, for that matter.

You wrote: "You are 100% wrong. From ALL's own website: 'ALL opposes parental consent legislation'"

Magnus, it is you who are 100% wrong, because parental notification is not parental consent. ALL supports parental notification as a proper form of incrementalism.

However, ALL opposes parental consent because it would set bad legal precedents on at least two counts: 1) it would make the parent an accessory to abortion, both morally and legally 2) it sets a precedent for adults permitting other crimes by minors or against minors, and those who cannot protect themselves (such as the disabled, or incompetent patients like Terri Schiavo, etc.)

Magnus, I work with my state delegate on these matters and he confirms that it is legally correct. So who is naïve?

I wrote: [ALL] is against exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother and life of the mother.

You wrote: Every pro-life group is against all abortion. The difference is that ALL actually opposes legislation that would ban the other 97% of abortions if it doesn't include these rare cases.

Magnus, NRLC is for exceptions - so that's not all abortions now, is it?

I wrote: Why? Because as former abortionist Bernard Nathanson admits...

You wrote: Thanks anyway. I'm not interested in the what former or practicing abortionists have to say.

Have it your way, Magnus. The facts are the facts.

I wrote: Furthermore, there is a way to write into law the priciple of double effect which holds no doctor liable should a child die while the physician is trying to save him and his mother. That's why exceptions are never necessary. (E.g., SD's ban applies double effect.)

You wrote: Psychobabble. I would take any ban that reduces the number of abortions that will be committed. It's that simple. I wouldn't oppose a law that said "No abortions may be performed on Sunday", would you? According to someone I know who now works for ALL, ALL would. These modern day pharisees may well be doing far more harm legislatively than they do good.

BS, Magnus. ALL would support a law that bans abortions on Sunday, providing it has no exceptions because, again, it is the proper form of incrementalism. I don't know who you spoke to over there, if anyone, but I'm repeating what Judie told me, and I suggest you call and ask for someone who knows ALL policy.

Magnus, apparently you don't know or understand much about law. But thanks for the bill number, I will look into it.

parental notification is not parental consent. ALL supports parental notification as a proper form of incrementalism.

Parental consent is a stricter requirement than parental notification. ALL's opposition to the stronger restriction that would save more lives is truly bizarre.

However, ALL opposes parental consent because it would set bad legal precedents on at least two counts: 1) it would make the parent an accessory to abortion, both morally and legally

It would also make abortion more difficult and less likely because the parents would be able to stop it, but I guess that doesn't matter to ALL.

2) it sets a precedent for adults permitting other crimes by minors or against minors, and those who cannot protect themselves (such as the disabled, or incompetent patients like Terri Schiavo, etc.)

This makes no sense at all. ALL's logic is more perverted than I thought!

Magnus, I work with my state delegate on these matters and he confirms that it is legally correct. So who is naïve?

It that is true, you both are.

Magnus, NRLC is for exceptions - so that's not all abortions now, is it?

No, NRTL is not FOR exceptions. The difference is that they will accept pro-life legislation that saves babies even if it contains exceptions, while ALL would rather have no legislation than a restriction that only saves 99.9% of babies that would otherwise be aborted.

ALL would support a law that bans abortions on Sunday, providing it has no exceptions because, again, it is the proper form of incrementalism.

I was told by an ALL representative that they wouldn't.

I don't know who you spoke to over there, if anyone, but I'm repeating what Judie told me, and I suggest you call and ask for someone who knows ALL policy.

You can call them if you want, but they already gave me and many others the answer I quoted above. Their website fact sheet I posted earlier says a great deal about their perverted viewpoint.

Magnus, apparently you don't know or understand much about law.

Apparently you and the ALL bunch don't know much about reason, and I thank you for posting your pharisaical poppycock here for all to see. Regardless of their intentions, the ALL cabal is likely doing far more harm than good with their twisted view of morality.