The most extreme part of the pro-life movement no longer supports exceptions, but many Republicans still agree with both the mother's life and the rape exception. Others agree with the mother's life exception but not the rape exception. I've met a few who agree with the rape exception but not the mother's life exception. Those who agree with exceptions aren't in favor of abortions in these cases, but they see these cases as situations where the criminal justice system should not be involved.
Another part of the issue is what will happen if life is defined at conception and politicians want to interpret that definition to mean that birth control pills that have any ingredient that would discourage implantation are suddenly illegal. Every Republican voter who wants to stop most of the "scrape and suck" early abortions does not want to outlaw birth control pills.
The abortion issue isn't a "short story" issue. That kind of knee-jerk approach will win a candidate cheers from a small group of zealous pro-lifers, but most people see the issue as being more involved. Candidates are trying to skate around this situation so that they can win the votes of the zealots without losing the votes of people who don't want extreme measures taken.
If we reach the debates next year and someone asks, "Are you willing to throw a woman or her doctor in jail for aborting a baby when the continued pregnancy would kill the woman?" and our candidate says "Yes," our candidate will lose the election. By demanding that a Republican candidate answer this question in that way, the hard-core pro-lifers are dooming our candidates to defeat. The right answer would be, "No, I am not willing to throw a woman or her doctor in jail in that situation. We abort millions of perfectly healthy babies whose hearts are already beating, whose brain waves are already active, and who are developing in perfectly normal pregnancies every year simply because the mother doesn't want to face the natural consequence of her choices. Those are the situations that the law should address." If the candidates would focus on these issues, we'd have a chance of passing laws that would close the clinics that turn out thousands of dead babies like a commodity product on the street corners of our big cities.
Bill
Besides everything else, Duncan Hunter is the best on trade, and eloquently talked about trade in the debate.
Here’s something else I found:
“He (Hunter) said China rebates its own taxes on all of its exported goods, and then imposes taxes on American imports, thus providing about a $34 advantage for every $100 of actual value of its own products. The United States, though, does not impose import duties of that sort, nor does it rebate the taxes on our own exports.
“Republicans are the party of markets, but we’re not the party of dumb markets,” he said. “Trade agreements are business deals, and it is more important than ever that we have smart business deals. What I am proposing is not protectionism, it’s just reciprocity. And it is important because they are using the trade to develop 75-100 short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles each year and to construct a large number of submarines....That’s ominous.”’
excerpt from: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11188
These little ones should not be killed. They are not exceptions, they are preborn human babies:
[img]http://www.cwcobgyn.com/images/4dpics_3.jpg[/img]
ULTRASOUND OF PREBORN BABY PIX
[img]http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b253/mware/18week125-1.jpg[/img]
18-week Old Fetus
We, as human beings, have no right to take life away from another human being.
Better links for you to click:
http://www.cwcobgyn.com/images/4dpics_3.jpg
ULTRASOUND OF PREBORN BABY PIX
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b253/mware/18week125-1.jpg
18-week Old Fetus
After clicking on the links, please let us know if these little ones are human persons, or “exceptions.”
No fudging, please.
