The purpose of government is to secure the rights of the people in its society. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not my neighbors are using a rubber. It has everything to do with defending the lives of people to whom the government serves.
“…by incremental lowering of the ‘least common denominators’ to being Pro-life. The most obvious and most debated lowering is in allowing exceptions for the ‘hard cases’ of rape, incest, and the life of the mother”
I am with the author, in that I see no moral or legal reason why abortion should be permissible in cases of rape or incest. Whether conceived by consentual sex between 2 non-related individuals or by way of rape or incest, the baby is still a person, endowed by his/her creator (nature, God, the mother, etc.) with inalienable rights, including the right to life. Where I do not understand the author’s reasoning is where he takes issue with the “life of the mother” exception. Assuming that there is a situation in which continuing a pregnancy would kill the mother, what could be the possible objection to aborting or some other procedure to terminate the growth within the womb? Is there no such thing as self-defense?
”That case held that married couples have a ‘privacy’ right to purchase contraceptives. To this day, Constitutional scholars openly concede that there was simply no foundation or precedent for such a ruling, but there was also no means to stop the Justices from imposing their morals on the nation.”
Does anyone have a link to the concessions of those Constitutional scholars? I would be interested in reading their reasoning.
”The pro-life movement cannot stop judges from ‘playing God’ in courtrooms or women from ‘playing God’ with their unborn babies if they insist on ‘playing God’ in their homes using contraception and birth control.”
Contraception and birth control are measures taken to prevent conception. Why are these on the same moral level as killing babies? In the former, nobody’s rights are violated. In the latter, a baby’s right to life is clearly violated.
The author does no such thing, I assure you. I know because I'm the author.
This is a call to educate and evangelize the pro-life movement itself, the great majority of which is ignorant of the irrefutable link between the contraceptive mentality and legalized abortion.
Why are these on the same moral level as killing babies? In the former, nobody’s rights are violated. In the latter, a baby’s right to life is clearly violated.
Most effective popular forms of contraception are hormonal in nature. ALL hormonal contraception acts at times by causing early spontaneous chemical abortions.
So hormonal contraceptives at least are no different than any other form of chemically induced abortion. See the Archives of Family Medicine study, Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent
Bork was one, although I could not possibly help you on finding his essay(s) on the topic.
But if my recall is correct, the Roe decision used the phrase "penumbras and emanations" (that's vapors in real language) to describe the 'location' of the right to privacy.
And yes, I know that Roe and Griswold were different cases.