Unfortunately, time is a factor (and I'm furtively looking over my shoulder for my wife right about now! :-) ) I'm not 100% sure how much time I've spent on this thread in the last few days, but I'm pretty sure it's getting well past the 5 hour mark.
But let me respond to a few things in your latest post, while acknowledging that there are many things in your earlier postings that I haven't even attempted to deal with.
The Bible didn't convince me that abortion was wrong. Watching a first trimester abortion (and the doctor sorting through the tiny ribs in a bloody mass of tissue) and hearing a dozen couples justify their "hard case" abortions on PBS in the early 1980s (ironically, these programs were intended to convince people that abortion wasn't so bad and was a necessity -- I'm not surprised that they were never shown again since I'm sure I wasn't the only person upon which they had the exact opposite effect), combined with research on the issue convinced me that abortion was wrong.
I'm curious -- what were the circumstances that allowed you to witness the abortion? Was this televised on the PBS program?
The only reasons I can imagine (and perhaps you've got one that I can't imagine) for bothering to post a position paper on abortion is to (A) persuade other people, (B) win the approval of other people, (C) to troll for flames and to start a disruptive discussion, or (D) because you just like to type.
My motives are along the lines of A and B, in a sideways sort of way. Let me explain.
I posted the thread partly because I felt that this point of view is likely to provide a way forward in resolving the utter clash between two camps, both of which are absolutist in their views and goals. I also wanted to test the idea in public. You are helping me do that, and others who have posted to this thread have also contributed to the refinement of my views on this issue.
BTW, if you can convince me that I'm wrong, then I'll change my position.
Do you want to make more effective arguments or not?
Generally, the answer to that question is yes.
Unfortunately, whether an argument is "effective" is often not based upon whether it is actually logical. Witness the continuing public adulation for the former First Felon.
In cases such as this, your very premise is demonstrably false. Should I point out to you that America banned alcohol through a constitutional amendment within the past century?
I should have stated, more accurately, "I do not believe that pro-lifers will ever be successful in lastingly criminalizing early-term abortions."
Yes, I am and was well aware of the passage of the 18th Amendment in 1919. However, Prohibition lasted for only 13 years before being permanently repealed. Such a law again prohibiting alcohol is, barring some kind of global catastrophe that would destroy our entire modern culture, utterly unforeseeable. The repeal of prohibition also makes a future national prohibition of early-term abortion the more unlikely.
Is possible, though, that we could temporarily ban all abortions? Yes, I will certainly agree that a temporary ban is possible, but I also believe that course of action is likely to result in an ultimate failure similar to that of the 18th Amendment, because there will always be many Americans who do not see early-term pregnancies as involving beings that are fully "human beings" in the same way that you and I are human beings.
Until a certain stage of development they possess no brain activity (and hence no capability for human thought), no ability to feel pain, no ability to exercise will, and no ability or potential to live if physically separated from the body of the mother. In fact, until 9 weeks of development, an entirely different term is medically used: embryo, rather than fetus.
It may be that fetal abortions could ultimately prove to be permanently bannable (with a lot of difficulty), while a permanent ban on embryonic abortions is unlikely to stick.
Need I point out to you that abortion on demand was largely illegal throughout this country before judicial fiat changed it? Or should I also point out that people's current opinions about abortion are based, in part, on the current legal status of abortion and that abortion opinion could very well simply follow abortion law, since most people would simply prefer not to think about the issue
You make some good points here, especially about judicial fiat and people not thinking about the issue, but abortion opinion is quite unlikely to simply follow abortion law. (Witness again the Prohibition, where per-capita alcohol consumption increased after a dramatic dip in the first year back to the same levels as before, if not higher levels in some instances).
You also fail to recognize (in this paragraph, at least) a massive cultural shift we have experienced during this century. The culture of the United States is no longer based on a unified world view. Religious world views (which include the view that all human life is sacred) compete with the humanistic world view, which holds enormous influence and is extremely unlikely to go away.
It's possible also that the most powerful shaper of public opinion -- the media -- is going to be completely taken over by conservative pro-lifers, but I doubt it. That liberals still have enough strength to vastly influence American opinions is demonstrated by the fact that Living History is currently the #2 best seller at both amazon.com and bn.com. Granted, there's an enormous "new book" bounce, but there are approximately 200 new books published every day in the United States.
In fact, I'm going to start taking a closer look at the "dividing point" (9 weeks) where terminology shifts from "embryo" to "fetus," as that appears, for several reasons, to be potentially a significant dividing point in human development.
There are several factors contributing to the inability of the pro-life movement to ban any abortions. Chief among them, and a point you can't ignore, is that a liberal and activist judiciary is the primary road-block to any abortion restrictions. Abortion regulations frequently get passed at the state level and numerous states would probably outlaw abortion on demand in a heartbeat if Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were overturned. Again, I point out that the pro-choice camps focus on the judiciary is telling. Right now, that's where the real game is being played.
Actually, you've made some very good points here. However, for reasons briefly outlined in skeletal form above, I do not believe we can look for a Supreme Court at any point during the next 50 years that will allow State governments to ban all abortions, even if Roe v. Wade is overturned (and it should be).
We might have a Supreme Court in the more distant future that is willing to ban all abortions, but probably only if liberalism is eventually defeated in this country by Islamism -- through demographics, terror weapons and brute force.
As for the pro-choice side using "incrementalism" to defend extremism, that's only working for them because the media helps them by (A) being pro-choice and (B) keeping abortion debates superficial. The NRA's total opposition to any gun restrictions was similar to NARAL's total opposition to abortion restrictions and for much the same reason -- once you get on the slippery slope, they argue, you can't stop. Yet you'll noticed that this totally backfired on the NRA since the media supports gun restrictions. They've been played in the media as the extremists, not allowing "reasonable" restrictions to pass. Yet you'll note that the media does not call NARAL extremist for opposing the partial-birth abortion ban or parental notification, both laws that a vast majority of people support. What is needed is for people to know how extreme NARAL is.
I agree completely.
Fortunately, the alternate media and newly available news sources that are friendly to conservative causes will help here. You've seen hints of what is to come with the backlash against the NOW group that refused to recognize Laci Peterson's son as worthy of legal protection.
These help. However, if you think the conservative media are going to become as all-powerful and dominant as the liberal media used to be, any time soon, then you're kidding yourself.
If you want to convince other people to share your beliefs, you need to explain them rather than simply stating them and calling them "common sense" or saying "I believe...".
Sometimes there is no honest alternative to saying "I believe," and then stating why. This is especially true when talking about the future, and when interpreting things that are subject to different possible meanings.
Which is exactly what the pro-life organizations are doing. Contrast this with the approach in the early and mid-1980s. If you've done any research on, say, the Human Life Amendment, you'd be able to see the difference.
Good.
Anecdotal evidence makes for poor arguments and, often enough, wrong positions.
I'll give you that. However, more people will readily form an opinion based on a single compelling anecdote, than will form an opinion based on facts and reason.
Fact is, we need both.
Look, if you want to feel insulted that I'm being critical of your arguments, that's fine. Feel free to ignore me. But if you want to make a better case in the future, take some time to read the logical fallacies pages and do some research on the abortion issue.
I'm not insulted by your criticism! And I'm not ignoring you, either. And I've no doubt some of your criticisms are valid. Your feedback may well turn out to be the most valuable I've received in this entire 450-post thread. I just wish I had a bit more time and energy to process it all.
I should have added: and more importantly, no matter how conservative the Supreme Court should become, it's not going to become conservative enough to allow an early-term abortion ban to stand.