Replies

That was not the question. The question was whether someone who is against abortion to save the life of the mother could conceivable claim moral authority when it comes to respect for human life. And we were talking about regular abortions, not PBA.

The truth of the matter is that about 4% of abortions are in cases of rape, incest and for the life of the mother. That may not sound much, but it means that 40,000 women are victimized by these circumstances. And as long as you refuse to recognize that, or recognize it but claim that you know better what is good for these women (i.e., forcing them to continue their pregnancy), you will be unable to do anything about the 96% of the abortions that are done for the sake of convenience. Even the people of South Dakota voted against such a draconian measure by 10 percentage points, God bless them.

The South Dakota situation was a victory - Garnering 44% of the vote while having ZERO support from NRLC and being outspent 4:1 on a massive misinformation campaign is to be taken as an encouragement.

Now, read the following paragraph, and explain to me how a bifurcation on "personhood" originiating in the circumstances of conception can pass precendential muster:

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What we see here is that the VERY SAME AMENDMENT (the 14th) whose penumbra ostensibly gives one human being the right to (hire a doctor to) dismember another is recognized by Justice Blackmun as providing the basis of protection for the unborn child "[i]f this suggestion of personhood is established." Given what we know now, which was not knowable in 1973, I believe we have arrived at that threshold. The rape exception is a red herring, does not benefit the victim, and renders any attempt to overturn Roe futile in light of the above. Thoughts?

I find the reversal of language employed by you and other pro-aborts appalling: dismembering and scrambling the organs of a helpless human being is "compassion", while prohibiting said act in law is "draconian."

The pro-life position is the one that is soft and merciful. Many pro-lifers are naturally giving and helpful people. It is the pro-choice-on-abortion position that is hard and loveless, "draconian".

What is soft and merciful, would you say, about this? How is this merciful to a mother - to lie to her about a "blob of tissue" or even "cancer-like cells" to obtain her consent to perform this act of brutality?

More to the point, how can you rest comfortably in a nation whose laws tolerate this? Have you no conscience?

Just another pro-abort on the FR claiming to be conservative as Jim Robinson described on one of the Giuliani threads.

The truth of the matter is that about 4% of abortions are in cases of rape, incest and for the life of the mother. >>>

there are no facts to back up this statement. Health of the mother is a vague term used by the satanists in the demonrat party to infuse or cast doubt and confuse the uninformed. Most women don't die as a result of being pregnant they die during labor. Medical conditions can be treated while the woman is pregnant, there is no need to murder an innocent human being. And in the case of rape, how could two wrongs make a right? It does not. Why would any "conservative" kill a child of God made in His image because someone was raped. Kill a baby because a woman was raped, yep, that makes a ton of sense. How about this, how about we execute a pro-abortion republican for every baby that is murdered as a result of a rape? Performing an unnecessary surgical procedure on a healthy patient is malpractice. The mother can experience hemorrhaging, infection, infertility, life-long depression, suicide, and a possibility of getting breast cancer years later. And notice nothing was said about the father, so-called conservatives should realize that a father should have some rights to see his child born and not murdered in utero because his wife or mate is unhealthy.

The Republican Party is the Pro-Life Party

2004 Republican Party Platform: Supports the Human Life Amendment