Replies

What is an”acceptable” rate of murder for, say, five year old children? Zero? Why should it be any different for children of any age? If our basis for rejecting abortion is that it is the unjustified, unexcused taking of a human life (aka murder), why should we grant an exception for certain forms of infanticide? It destroys our premise, and in so doing prolongs the coming of the day of our victory, for if the culture does not come to think of abortion as the murder of an innocent child, we will never get the critical mass to overcome the inertia of resistance in our legal and political systems. I accept at face value your desire to end the killing. I don’t believe becoming comfortable with some reduced level of murder will get you where you want to go. Not to mention the children whose deaths you are ok with. Given a chance, I’m betting they’d rather not be executed for doing nothing wrong.

I agree with you, but as a practical matter, you will never get what you want as literally millions of babies are destroyed. If we limited it to just rape ,incest,and the LIFE of the mother we could pass that tomorrow. This has gone way to far to end up as an intellectual exercise as opposed as a way to save millions of babies. We can talk about the issue for another 60 years or we can pass a law that a majority could get behind and limit the destruction to a few thousands as opposed to millions.

It is our absolutism that has kept the argument going for 60 years. If we could save 99%, why not start there?