Are Pro-Lifers Trying to Lose?

Newtheran said:

If abortion is murder, the only legitimate exception is one made for a threat to the life of the mother...and occasionally, situations like that (severe pregnancy related pulmonary hypertension for instance) do arise.

Should we write exceptions into laws against murder so that rape victims can kill their assailants?

That's the real issue.

Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that "abortion is murder" is the right approach.
In any case, the recent heartbeat laws passed in several states are so extreme that even Pat Robertson has expressed reservations.

Sistrin said:

The vast majority of the American public has, at one time or another, taken a basic Biology class. If they paid the slightest bit of attention then their emotional pro-life position is supported by fact-based logic.

Click to expand...

As I said earlier, I have little use for abortion, but it is my understanding that biological facts aren't always convenient for pro-lifers. Most fertilized eggs get flushed out before they implant in the uterus. Does God deliberately kill most human beings before they are born? I doubt it.

Sistrin said:

The logic employed here is staggering. The human reproductive system at times breaks down, therefore God himself kills most human beings.

Biological facts constitute a metaphorical freight train screaming down the track toward the pro-abortion crowd certain to run them flat. That is why many on the pro-abortion side are simply giving up and admitting the unborn, at any stage during the reproductive process, do constitute life, but they simply don't care.

Click to expand...

I simply followed the logic of believing that every fertilized human egg is a human being to its logical conclusion. Since the non-implantation of an egg is out of our hands, it is an Act of God, in the legal sense.

I have noticed that pro-choice group doesn't seem to care, and I don't defend them.

hedrick said:

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theory. The opinion is convincing.

If it violates their rights, I do object. Obviously laws embody values to some extent. But under our form of government there are limits to imposing values on those who disagree.

Click to expand...

What I said in interpreting Roe v Wade/Doe v Bolton is not a conspiracy theory. I've noticed that the term "conspiracy theory" has become a synonym for complete nonsense, which is very unhelpful.

Justice Harry Blackmum was a mindless advocate of unlimited power for the Federal courts. To Blackmun, to produce a decision, or a pair of decisions, so radical that the laws of every US state and territory had to be thrown out doesn't require justification. Blackmun just assumes that he, speaking for the Supreme Court, has the power to do this.