Look, this is the whole argument. There are many people of good heart and sincere conviction who, with the science and technology of today, see that with the blessing of new life, something unique and precisely definable as a new human being has come into existence. Very understandably they conclude that it is a sin to harm that new human life. But, they see people doing it all the time, seemingly with approval of the law, and it is upsetting.
But, that IS the law. What is needed is to change the law, but we aren’t a dictatorship where all that is needed is to somehow place into power a dictator who can with a stroke of the pen, change the law. To change the law is a LONG time project requiring patience and somtimes compromise, moving the line, and changing minds.
That CAN’T be accomplished by fantastic retionalization, and claiming the law says something that it does not, or equivocating of the meaning of words, or any of the other dishonest and extreme debate tactics on display right here on this thread.
Most of all, it can’t mean trashing and undermining the very people that can help most and who have already helped most. The only result of that will be setback after setback. I used the term “purer than thou” to describe some peopel who would seemingly rather lose now than win later. They didn’t like it.
I just don’t understand it and I think we ought to call it as we see it. I’ve done so on this thread to the best of my ability, and I am now calling an end to my posts on this thread.
To change the law is a LONG time project requiring patience and somtimes compromise, moving the line, and changing minds.
***I think the minds are changed, and the law is what has not caught up. That’s why Duncan Hunter’s personhood-at-conception plan could change things quickly, without a requirement of overturning Roe v. Wade.
Before you lump me into the purer-than-thou mold, you should check my proposal
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917001/posts?page=53#53
and note that Olde North Church, who was banned for pushing compromise a little too hard had said that the proposal would save lives.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917651/posts?page=195#195