Is It Time To Reevaluate Pro-Life Strategy?

Don't blame women.

Homicide Based on the Killing of an Unborn Child -- In this essay, Alan Wasserstrom surveys the history of laws which prosecute feticide--the destruction of a human fetus--as homicide.

State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 503) recognizes unborn children as victims of federally prohibited crimes of violence. If someone injures or kills an unborn child while committing a violent federal crime against a pregnant woman, the assailant will be charged with a separate offense on behalf of the unborn child. The bill simply puts federal law behind the common sense recognition that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or kills her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims. The House passed H.R. 503 / vote: 252-172 April 26, 2001

Tag for future reading.

Good. I like Graham. I hope to see a lot of GOP public statements to that effect tomorrow.

Thanks for the link, I will e mail out the list for my state, it's a great resource. But even that link doesn't list everything--hospitals for example. I know of 2 near me which does abortions and I am sure, most secular hospitals in the State does them, and here is another example, Robert Wood Johnson Hopspital in New Brunswick, named after the founder of Johnson & Johnson.

Bishop's fury gets [NJ Gov] McGreevey to flip-flop
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/794019/posts
Unlike Robert Wood Johnson, St. Peter's Hospital does not perform abortions.

Thanks, I just called them to add "hospitals" to their list. There are much more facilities than they list if hospitals are included.

First, many thanks to Remedy for adding some good scientific data to the thread in post #35. I think this kind of information is great for changing people's minds about the issue.

Secondly, I agree with both of you that technically the pro-abortion argument has become the assertion that the adult is "more" human than the unborn child. However, I still think that the average person who believes abortion should remain legal hasn't looked at this question closely enough to have developed that distinction. The people that argue for legalized abortion on a regular basis may be making that distinction, but they don't represent the average person who feels uncomfortable even thinking about the issue. I freely admit that I don't have any real data to support my view. This is just a "sense" that I get from talking to people. I would welcome any data you have showing that most people are making the distinction that you explained.

WFTR
Bill

I still think that the average person who believes abortion should remain legal hasn't looked at this question closely enough to have developed that distinction.

The average person can afford to be wrong about the science. She can easily admit to being wrong or continue in ignorance.

The people that argue for legalized abortion on a regular basis may be making that distinction

These folks cannot afford to be wrong on the science, lest they be laughed out of existence.

Antonin Scalia and His Critics: The Church, the Courts, and the Death Penalty What the "pro-choice" American does not believe is that a human fetus is as fully a human life as Uncle Charlie.

I freely admit that I don't have any real data to support my view.

Scalia says "does not believe." The pros "do not want to believe." So, having lost the scientific debate on when a human being begins, they hope to win the supposed philosophical debate on personhood .

no person-no unborn child-has a right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling host. Unborn children may have a right to life, but that right to life ends where it encroaches upon a mother's right to bodily autonomy.

Human Embryo Research After the Genome The Orwellian terms "pre-embryo" and "potential human being" no longer have any scientific validity.

Statement - On Human Embryos and Stem Cell Research...

One of the great hallmarks of American law has been its solicitous protection of the lives of individuals, especially the vulnerable. ...–one of the great achievements of the modern world–is founded on the conviction that when the dignity of one human being is assaulted, all of us are threatened.

Current law against funding research in which human embryos are harmed and destroyed reflects well-established national and international legal and ethical norms against the misuse of any human being for research purposes. Since 1975, those norms have been applied to unborn children at every stage of development in the womb, and since 1995 they have been applied to the human embryo outside the womb as well. The existing law on human embryonic research is a reflection of universally accepted principles governing experiments on human subjects–principles reflected in the Nuremberg Code, the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and many other statements. Accordingly, members of the human species who cannot give informed consent for research should not be the subjects of an experiment unless they personally may benefit from it or the experiment carries no significant risk of harming them.

...the Supreme Court has never prevented the government from protecting prenatal life outside the abortion context, and public sentiment also seems even more opposed to government funding of embryo experimentation than to the funding of abortion. The laws of a number of states–including Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Utah–specifically protect embryonic human beings outside the womb. Most of these provisions prohibit experiments on embryos outside the womb.

Thanks for another informative post!