[avacado]

"I believe a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under the law from being killed. But if the goal is to save the lives of unborn children – and it should be – we need to look at our primary line of attack and see what it has achieved..."

Given the premise of the article that abortion will never be banned yet lives need to be saved, then this is what needs to be done and can be achievable.

- No more federal money for abortions

- The State cannot give abortions to minors without parental notification of both the girl and the boy.

- The girl, boy, and their respective parents must all meet to discuss the issue with counselors.

That's not a solve all in the above but it puts responsibility of pregnancy into the hands of those involved. It's a start.

[avacado]

And I would like to add there is one more thing that can be done. DO NOT LET HILLARY INTO THE WHITEHOUSE. She will 100% federally fund abortions in her healthcare scam and appoint abortion-mill Supreme Court judges.

[puroresu]

In the short term, he’s right, but in the long term lots of things can happen. We should never give up the goal of legal protection for the unborn. Ultimately, we can win that one, but not if we give it up as a long term goal.

[papertyger]

I have long agreed with the main premise of this article: abortion will never be banned. That is why I have advocated a competing right for males: the paper abortion.

[goldstategop]

I think legal recognition of personhood is the right way to go. It would shift the debate from a woman's body to who is the unborn and does it have rights? We won't make much progress if we are seen as anti-woman and motivated by a desire to run her life. We'd be better off arguing our understanding of when life begins has grown significantly since 1973 and now its time to revisit the question of personhood.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[ontap]

Electing Presidents that will nominate pro-life judges is the only way to fight this battle.

[television is just wrong]

their plan should be, taking back our schools, teaching abstinance as an option, and putting back a social stigma on being a under 18 pregnant woman.

[longtermmemmory]

It is ALL about the judges.

Who are the friends and associates of the candidates.

Are they collegue with a Ginsberg or an Alito?

[weegee]

Constitutional amendment is needed to shield the human right to life from activist judges.

The GOP has no interest in actually settling the issue. Just as the DNC counts on a steady 90+% black voter support, the GOP counts on the right-to-life block. But they do nothing to change the status quo. They don’t even fight to defund taxpayer subsidizing of abortion.

The Constitutional Amendment should address fetal stem cell harvesting, genetic discrimination, and abortion as birth control.

I don’t know that we will ever see this OR ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS (the Supreme Court dictates new Constitutional beliefs, there is no will by legislators to go to on record for or against such changes anymore).

[Alberta's Child]

Abortion Ban Will Never Happen

I disagree with the author's general premise here. Abortion WILL be outlawed at some time here in the U.S. If not now, then it'll happen 50-100 years from now when this country is filled with Mexican Muslims.

[rottndog]

An honest look at the landscape suggests that the longtime goal of the pro-life movement – the banning of abortion – is never going to be achieved.

Totally agree. Best case scenario--SCOTUS populated by judges who properly send the issue back to the states. Some states will outlaw it, some won't. That's as it should be, according to how this country was built.

This fact alone demonstrates the insanity of not voting for the Republican nominee, electing a Dumbocrat who will appoint anti-constitutional judges.

[TalonDJ]

No compromise on the murder of the unborn. No ‘safe rare legal’ nonsense. If it is murder there is no compromise. If you except compromise you are excepting the premise that is is ‘bad’ but not the same as ‘murder’.

[Popocatapetl]

I disagree. The current method of gradualism by the anti-abortion movement has made tremendous inroads against the practice in most of the US. It is a simple strategy: if you are consistently winning by placing small bets, why wager on an all or nothing bet? Your odds will actually go down if you do. The last thing the anti-abortion movement should do is try for a federal solution.

The pro-abortion movement won big at the start in an all or nothing bet at the federal level. But since that time, they have been getting massacred in a “death by a thousand cuts” at a local and State level.

Ideally, the anti-abortion movement just plays defense at the federal level, and continues to win at the lower level.

The real enemies of the anti-abortion movement *within* the anti-abortion movement are those that insist on a clear and decisive emotionally charged win. Instead, those who want to end abortions don’t care how much it *feels* like a win, as long as abortions stop.

So what is the priority? To feel like you have won, or to actually win?

[Raycpa]

As long as our culture says abortion is like getting your teeth cleaned, the law will never ban it.

The pro-lifer’s need to start with the hearts and minds of their friends and relatives to see abortion for what it is.

When that is done, the law won’t matter.

[Son House]

New Plan: Reverse Psychology; Stand out in front of Abortion Clinics and Planned Parenthood with signs that read reasons why to get abortion, like;
Intern Pregnant? Political Scandal? Stop in.
Underage? Pregnant? Don’t Want Parents to Know, Plan here!

.
The shock value of learning the reasons why abortion are given could shake the honest folks who have blindly supported Abortionist Democrats over the value Human Life.

[Aquinasfan]

the banning of abortion – is never going to be achieved.

Is this person omniscient or just clairvoyant?

[Malone LaVeigh]

I've always felt that one of the fundamental weaknesses of the pro-life movement was its all or nothing approach to abortion.
The pro-choice crowd was always able to counter that by raising the health of the mother issue or by trotting out the rape and incest exclusion. While these arguments were somewhat disingenuous, they always succeeded in derailing any efforts at a total ban on abortion.
When you consider that legitimately, these exclusions would account for a very small number of abortions, it always seemed foolish to me not to call the pro-choicers out on that argument.
We should accept these exclusions with the provision that any threat to the mother's health had to be medically documented and any falsification would expose the doctor to a loss of license to practice medicine. A claim of rape or incest would have to be conditional on the filing of a police report. IOW, the mother would have to accuse the father of committing a serious crime.
I don't believe for one second that the pro-choicers would accept these conditions, but it would succeed in taking those arguments away from them.

[EternalVigilance]

One of the most idiotic articles I’ve ever seen.

[Salvation]

Bump for later.

[JSDude1]

Personhood Federal Amendment: Problem Solved: Let’s go for the Jugular..

This person is a (compromiser), or they aren’t willing to stand up and be ‘counted’.