Sebelius cuts funding to Catholic programs

[Rhode Irish]

I wonder how the argument "My advice to you, Abe Lincoln, whatever the basis for your view that slavery is wrong and immoral, is to not own any slaves if you find it objectionable" would have been viewed? In fact, the argument was made, and was rejected, because there was a moral imperative to oppose great evil. The argument that opposition to slavery was zealotry was also raised by slaveholders and, thankfully, was rejected.

This is obviously an absurd comparison. Seriously, Sandusky and slave owners? That is who we are comparing with women who exercise control over their own bodies? I can respect an honest disagreement on the subject, but good luck finding anyone to engage you on your preposterous analogies.

 

[palinurus]

C'mon, clearly there is a difference between moral issues upon which everyone agrees (like murder) and moral issues upon which people disagree sharply (like abortion). My personal opinion, which I haven't made a part of this discussion to this point, is that I don't really like the idea of abortion. If I were asked for advice by someone considering the procedure, I would not recommend abortion under almost any circumstance. But I also don't think it is my place, or the government's place, to tell a woman she does not have the right to make that choice herself. Not prosecuting women for making their own reproductive choices does not equate to endorsing the procedure, no more than not prosecuting adulterers equates to endorsing adultery.

You choose murder as the law in question; isn't the policy basis for, say, food stamps also a basis that is found in the Gospels? Does that render arguments in favor of food stamps programs invalid?

The propriety of arguments based on principles that are found in certain religious beliefs isn't dependent on whether there's a consensus or majority or plurality for the principle being argued for. I'd be entitled to raise the moral basis in favor of laws restricting abortion (whether it's found in religion or not), even if I am the only person on earth who wants to make the argument. The principle -- the inherent value of human life -- is what I am arguing for; I'm not foreclosed from arguing that because my religion teaches that it is a moral position. It's irrelevant whether I am arguing for something we all agree on or whether we're sharply divided. The principle is the same.

 

[palinurus]

This is obviously an absurd comparison. Seriously, Sandusky and slave owners? That is who we are comparing with women who exercise control over their own bodies? I can respect an honest disagreement on the subject, but good luck finding anyone to engage you on your preposterous analogies.

Who said anything about Sandusky? You lost me on that one.

But re the analogy please tell me how the principle in each is different? You said, if you don't want an abortion, don't have one. I say, the slaveholders argued, if you don't want slaves, don't own them. How is the principle different? It's a difference of subject matter, not principle. My point is that the value of life is intrinsic and objective -- slaves were persons as are the unborn, both possessing objective rights. If we can define away the human-ness of the unborn, can't we define away the human-ness of anyone?

 

[irishtrain]

There IS a scientific way of looking at being against abortion as well. So are they calling everyone who believes life begins at conception Religous people (Catholics). This is horse crap!!!! VOTE VOTE VOTE

VOTE #$%%$# vote Put this guy in the loss column

 

[jason_h537]

I don't care about abortion. It has been legal since the 70's. A conservative supreme court has refused to look at the issue for 2 decades saying it is an individuals right to decide. Why should my Catholic beliefs be law? Why should someone have to do something because of my religious beliefs? There are so much more bigger issues that effect everyone, focusing on non issues like gay marriage, abortion, or don't ask don't tell are used to distract from real problems.

 

[IrishinSyria]

This is obviously an absurd comparison. Seriously, Sandusky and slave owners? That is who we are comparing with women who exercise control over their own bodies? I can respect an honest disagreement on the subject, but good luck finding anyone to engage you on your preposterous analogies.

Careful there- you seem to be deliberately missing the point of the argument, i.e. that if human life starts at conception then there is a clear moral imperative to protect that life. I happen to disagree with both the assumption behind that logic and with the conclusion that abortion must be outlawed (for one thing, it's far from clear that outlawing abortion is effective at preventing it) but the logic is there, and does not require religion to see.

My own opinion is that abortion is a hard decision and should only be a worst-case scenario, but it should be a personal one. I also believe that access to contraceptives (including plan b) for women and human embryos for research should be unlimited. More to the point, even if one were to accept the most extreme stance on abortion: it amounts to the mass murder of thousands of children a year, I wouldn't really care. Even if murder and abortion are moral equivalents, they do not have an equal impact on society. Murder undermines the social contract and, if left unpunished, could lead to chaos, fear, and a collapse of order. Abortion does none of those things. As I believe that the state's role should tend to minimize the importance of morality and emphasize the creation of an atmosphere where civil society can thrive, I believe that the difficult moral questions surrounding abortion should be let to the individual. I empathize, however, with those who disagree. My advice to them would be to work to make the world a place where abortions aren't needed. Increase economic opportunities for the lower classes, encourage effective sex education and easy access to birth control, volunteer at an orphanage, adopt a child, provide a support network for single mothers, etc etc... the list of more effective ways to fight abortion than making it illegal can go on and on.

As for the economy, I'm not going to touch that one with a ten foot poll. However, most was the correct word. More economists are Keynesian, or at least influenced by Keynes, then fall under the UC or Austrian school. Doesn't mean one is right, just that there are more of them.

 

[jason_h537]

Careful there- you seem to be deliberately missing the point of the argument, i.e. that if human life starts at conception then there is a clear moral imperative to protect that life. I happen to disagree with both the assumption behind that logic and with the conclusion that abortion must be outlawed (for one thing, it's far from clear that outlawing abortion is effective at preventing it) but the logic is there, and does not require religion to see.

My own opinion is that abortion is a hard decision and should only be a worst-case scenario, but it should be a personal one. I also believe that access to contraceptives (including plan b) for women and human embryos for research should be unlimited. More to the point, even if one were to accept the most extreme stance on abortion: it amounts to the mass murder of thousands of children a year, I wouldn't really care. Even if murder and abortion are moral equivalents, they do not have an equal impact on society. Murder undermines the social contract and, if left unpunished, could lead to chaos, fear, and a collapse of order. Abortion does none of those things. As I believe that the state's role should tend to minimize the importance of morality and emphasize the creation of an atmosphere where civil society can thrive, I believe that the difficult moral questions surrounding abortion should be let to the individual. I empathize, however, with those who disagree. My advice to them would be to work to make the world a place where abortions aren't needed. Increase economic opportunities for the lower classes, encourage effective sex education and easy access to birth control, volunteer at an orphanage, adopt a child, provide a support network for single mothers, etc etc... the list of more effective ways to fight abortion than making it illegal can go on and on.

As for the economy, I'm not going to touch that one with a ten foot poll. However, most was the correct word. More economists are Keynesian, or at least influenced by Keynes, then fall under the UC or Austrian school. Doesn't mean one is right, just that there are more of them.

Wish i could rep you more than once for this one

 

[kmoose]

- And I think an argument could be made that republicans are "destroying what this country is all about" (although I probably would have chosen different wording for this idea than he did) by creating a culture of obstinate obstructionism in Washington that has left the federal government unable to do anything substantial to address our dismal current state of affairs; and by cultivating the current toxic state of the political discourse in this country. The right is certainly more politically savvy than the left, but part of that is trading in a brand of inflammatory rhetoric that is reckless and irresponsible.

Republicans didn't "create a culture of obstinate obstructionism", politicians did. And "politicians" are made up of members of both parties.

 

[pkt77242]

I seriously laughed out loud when I read that part. Approximately 50% of Americans currently pay ZERO, I repeat ZERO income taxes.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UGL-Ex1CD1c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


The first dude he talks to is my favorite. hahah

You realize that they pay 0 taxes because they don't make enough money to pay them. I am pretty sure they would love to make 100,000 or 1 million and pay taxes but they don't. That is the most useless statistic out there.

 

[pkt77242]

Careful there- you seem to be deliberately missing the point of the argument, i.e. that if human life starts at conception then there is a clear moral imperative to protect that life. I happen to disagree with both the assumption behind that logic and with the conclusion that abortion must be outlawed (for one thing, it's far from clear that outlawing abortion is effective at preventing it) but the logic is there, and does not require religion to see.

My own opinion is that abortion is a hard decision and should only be a worst-case scenario, but it should be a personal one. I also believe that access to contraceptives (including plan b) for women and human embryos for research should be unlimited. More to the point, even if one were to accept the most extreme stance on abortion: it amounts to the mass murder of thousands of children a year, I wouldn't really care. Even if murder and abortion are moral equivalents, they do not have an equal impact on society. Murder undermines the social contract and, if left unpunished, could lead to chaos, fear, and a collapse of order. Abortion does none of those things. As I believe that the state's role should tend to minimize the importance of morality and emphasize the creation of an atmosphere where civil society can thrive, I believe that the difficult moral questions surrounding abortion should be let to the individual. I empathize, however, with those who disagree. My advice to them would be to work to make the world a place where abortions aren't needed. Increase economic opportunities for the lower classes, encourage effective sex education and easy access to birth control, volunteer at an orphanage, adopt a child, provide a support network for single mothers, etc etc... the list of more effective ways to fight abortion than making it illegal can go on and on.

As for the economy, I'm not going to touch that one with a ten foot poll. However, most was the correct word. More economists are Keynesian, or at least influenced by Keynes, then fall under the UC or Austrian school. Doesn't mean one is right, just that there are more of them.

Great post

 

[pkt77242]

So are all of you that are in favor of banning abortion also in favor of helping to subsidize all of these babies? Are you ready to pay more taxes to help them be in daycare, get proper nutrition and an education so they can become productive members of society? (and before you mention adoption, we already have many children in our system who aren't adopted so please don't go there).

Personally I find abortion distasteful, but I think it should be legal but hopefully seldomly used procedure. I would tell anyone who asked me for my opinion that it is better to have the baby (well except in rape, incest and where the mother's life is at risk, where I think it can be appropriate depending on the individuals belief).

 

[PJWhitfield]

Wow, five pages of reactions. My favorite laugh line was "credentialed" economists. If you want to understand economics, try reading Steve Hanke at Johns Hopkins.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I don't care about abortion. It has been legal since the 70's. A conservative supreme court has refused to look at the issue for 2 decades saying it is an individuals right to decide. Why should my Catholic beliefs be law? Why should someone have to do something because of my religious beliefs? There are so much more bigger issues that effect everyone, focusing on non issues like gay marriage, abortion, or don't ask don't tell are used to distract from real problems.

Thank you for this. Excellent. This is exactly what I was initially trying to express.

 

[palinurus]

So are all of you that are in favor of banning abortion also in favor of helping to subsidize all of these babies? Are you ready to pay more taxes to help them be in daycare, get proper nutrition and an education so they can become productive members of society? (and before you mention adoption, we already have many children in our system who aren't adopted so please don't go there).

Personally I find abortion distasteful, but I think it should be legal but hopefully seldomly used procedure. I would tell anyone who asked me for my opinion that it is better to have the baby (well except in rape, incest and where the mother's life is at risk, where I think it can be appropriate depending on the individuals belief).

To believe abortion is a grave moral wrong and intrinsically evil does not require you to believe in a massive federal welfare state. There are any number of different ways to fulfill our moral/Christian obligation to help others in economic hardship; there's only one way to stop killing the unborn, and that's to stop abortion.

 

[NankerPhelge]

I don't care about abortion. It has been legal since the 70's. A conservative supreme court has refused to look at the issue for 2 decades saying it is an individuals right to decide. Why should my Catholic beliefs be law? Why should someone have to do something because of my religious beliefs? There are so much more bigger issues that effect everyone, focusing on non issues like gay marriage, abortion, or don't ask don't tell are used to distract from real problems.

I guess that baby being cut to pieces and sucked from the womb might see that as a "real problem."

 

[BeauBenken]

What are our bigger problems? Money?

No doubt, I don't vote on a politician based on whether they are pro-life or pro-choice because I honestly doubt that we are ever going to have someone reverse Roe v Wade...

You guys keep missing a big point though which is that this isn't a religious idea or belief. It's simple morals.

Why are our bigger worries money as opposed to life?

 

[pkt77242]

To believe abortion is a grave moral wrong and intrinsically evil does not require you to believe in a massive federal welfare state. There are any number of different ways to fulfill our moral/Christian obligation to help others in economic hardship; there's only one way to stop killing the unborn, and that's to stop abortion.

Not a welfare state, a state that gives them the same opportunity that most other children get (and if you think inner city schools are on the same level as rich suburban areas, then I am done with this conversation). If the government is mandating that the abortions can't happen, then the government needs to help.

 

[pkt77242]

What are our bigger problems? Money?

No doubt, I don't vote on a politician based on whether they are pro-life or pro-choice because I honestly doubt that we are ever going to have someone reverse Roe v Wade...

You guys keep missing a big point though which is that this isn't a religious idea or belief. It's simple morals.

Why are our bigger worries money as opposed to life?

I disagree on it as simple morals. The issue is split pretty close to 50/50 so I don't think it is simple morals. If it was simple morals it would be rather lopsided.

 

[ryno 24]

Rhode Island back to the original point of the discussion which was cutting funding to Catholic Programs- not abortion- though Abortion was involved...

I dont see why they needed to cut funding to this organization that was helping women. The women could have gone to a different clinic if they wanted an abortion. But they didn't these services were serving a purpose.

I do not believe this debate should have been about anything but help women who are victims of sex trafficking. They are the ones being affected.

My political views do not affect how I view these women who need help. and I do not believe my views other than the one on the original thread need to be discussed.

Also Rhode Island I respect you for defending your view

 

[jason_h537]

What are our bigger problems? Money?

No doubt, I don't vote on a politician based on whether they are pro-life or pro-choice because I honestly doubt that we are ever going to have someone reverse Roe v Wade...

You guys keep missing a big point though which is that this isn't a religious idea or belief. It's simple morals.

Why are our bigger worries money as opposed to life?

It is not a money vs life issue. If you want to teach that abortion is wrong to your family then you can, several families already do. That does not mean that laws should be based on what you think is right, especially when just as many, if not more people disagree with you on this issue.

 

[palinurus]

Careful there- you seem to be deliberately missing the point of the argument, i.e. that if human life starts at conception then there is a clear moral imperative to protect that life. I happen to disagree with both the assumption behind that logic and with the conclusion that abortion must be outlawed (for one thing, it's far from clear that outlawing abortion is effective at preventing it) but the logic is there, and does not require religion to see.

My own opinion is that abortion is a hard decision and should only be a worst-case scenario, but it should be a personal one. I also believe that access to contraceptives (including plan b) for women and human embryos for research should be unlimited. More to the point, even if one were to accept the most extreme stance on abortion: it amounts to the mass murder of thousands of children a year, I wouldn't really care. Even if murder and abortion are moral equivalents, they do not have an equal impact on society. Murder undermines the social contract and, if left unpunished, could lead to chaos, fear, and a collapse of order. Abortion does none of those things. As I believe that the state's role should tend to minimize the importance of morality and emphasize the creation of an atmosphere where civil society can thrive, I believe that the difficult moral questions surrounding abortion should be let to the individual. I empathize, however, with those who disagree. My advice to them would be to work to make the world a place where abortions aren't needed. Increase economic opportunities for the lower classes, encourage effective sex education and easy access to birth control, volunteer at an orphanage, adopt a child, provide a support network for single mothers, etc etc... the list of more effective ways to fight abortion than making it illegal can go on and on.

As for the economy, I'm not going to touch that one with a ten foot poll. However, most was the correct word. More economists are Keynesian, or at least influenced by Keynes, then fall under the UC or Austrian school. Doesn't mean one is right, just that there are more of them.

With respect, I disagree with most of your post, but I'll limit myself to the part highlighted.

The number you cite isn't extreme; actually, it's an understatement. It's generally accepted that there are over one million abortions each year in the US alone. The federal Center for Disease Control estimates there have been over 50 million in the US since 1973.

Also, as I've mentioned, virtually all laws are an expression of some moral judgment. Therefore, the notion that we can "minimize the importance of morality" (which I don't understand why you want to do) is actually impossible. Even the removal of laws (eg, the laws against abortion) are an expression of a view of morality (rights of mother are so important that we give them 100% weight, the rights of the unborn totally irrelevant so we give them no weight).

Also, to say you don't care if thousands of unborn are killed (and it's over a million a year, not thousands) sounds pretty callous. Even the most strident abortion proponents (think Hillary Clinton) say they'd like abortion to be "rare." So they must be making a "moral judgment" that abortion is neither a moral neutral or a moral good -- but that it's something we should make "rare," so they say.

 

[palinurus]

Not a welfare state, a state that gives them the same opportunity that most other children get (and if you think inner city schools are on the same level as rich suburban areas, then I am done with this conversation). If the government is mandating that the abortions can't happen, then the government needs to help.

We don't have that now, and we DO have abortion. But the point is, we can agree on the goal of providing opportunity without saying, "Well, since we can't reach our ideal of providing equal opportunity, we may as well allow mothers to kill their babies." I favor preventing abortion and providing as great opportunity as possible (recognizing there will always be inequalities), but I don't favor a massive federal welfare state. So maybe we agree.

 

[pkt77242]

We don't have that now, and we DO have abortion. But the point is, we can agree on the goal of providing opportunity without saying, "Well, since we can't reach our ideal of providing equal opportunity, we may as well allow mothers to kill their babies." I favor preventing abortion and providing as great opportunity as possible (recognizing there will always be inequalities), but I don't favor a massive federal welfare state. So maybe we agree.

My point is that people want to legislate to keep the child alive, but the moment are alive, too bad for them. That seems *** backwards to me. If the babies life was worth protecting in the womb then why are we abandoning it afterwards. I am not saying it is a rationization for keeping abortion legal, I am saying that the responsibility for society to protect that baby doesn't end at birth.

 

[IrishinSyria]

With respect, I disagree with most of your post, but I'll limit myself to the part highlighted.

The number you cite isn't extreme; actually, it's an understatement. It's generally accepted that there are over one million abortions each year in the US alone. The federal Center for Disease Control estimates there have been over 50 million in the US since 1973.

Also, as I've mentioned, virtually all laws are an expression of some moral judgment. Therefore, the notion that we can "minimize the importance of morality" (which I don't understand why you want to do) is actually impossible. Even the removal of laws (eg, the laws against abortion) are an expression of a view of morality (rights of mother are so important that we give them 100% weight, the rights of the unborn totally irrelevant so we give them no weight).

Also, to say you don't care if thousands of unborn are killed (and it's over a million a year, not thousands) sounds pretty callous. Even the most strident abortion proponents (think Hillary Clinton) say they'd like abortion to be "rare." So they must be making a "moral judgment" that abortion is neither a moral neutral or a moral good -- but that it's something we should make "rare," so they say.

You misread my point: the extreme position wasn't the number, it was the use of the word murder. And I, like Hillary Clinton, am not in favor of large numbers of abortion. I just don't confuse my morals and preferences with what is best for society.

As for morality in law... I believe that the primary purpose of law should be to create a predictable social framework in which people can function on a somewhat even playing field and with the assurance that they're not going to arbitrarily lose life, liberty or property. Obviously, it's a lot more complicated than that, but the reason I shy away from a law based on moral standards is that they are a) constantly changing b) differ from person to person and c) can often be used to take away people's freedom. Also, I believe that laws that can not be enforced are counter productive and encourage civil disobedience .

 

[NankerPhelge]

I disagree on it as simple morals. The issue is split pretty close to 50/50 so I don't think it is simple morals. If it was simple morals it would be rather lopsided.

No, not really. The issue is not about "50/50." Survey after survey indicates that a solid majority of Americans are against abortion in general, and even more overwhelmingly against abortion in a number of circumstances in which it is now legal, ranging from "to protect the mental health of the mother" right up to late term and partial-birth abortions. The idea that 50% or more of Americans are pro-abortion (or "pro-choice" as they sanitize it) is simply an oft-repeated mantra of the pro-aborts to try to maintain their position based on some sort of warped view of morality that if a majority of the people are for it, it must be right. This idea that majority opinion = moral correctness has been disproven countless times throughout history. Along with the notion that if the Supreme Court approves of a position, that is the end of the question and a final moral imprimatur.
See, e.g., the Dred Scott case.

That the pro-aborts realize that they are really in the minority can be shown by the vigorousness with which they have fought to prevent the overturning of Roe v Wade and its progeny. If the pro-aborts were truly in the majority position they pretend to be, then overturning Roe v. Wade would be practically insignificant. This would not make abortion illegal. Instead, rather than the question being mandated by 9 lawyers on the Supreme Court, the issue would simply be returned to the legislatures of the individual states. If the pro-aborts are the majority they claim, then their abortion "rights" would be in no danger. Even if the split is 50/50, abortion should remain legal in about 1/2 the states. But, the pro-aborts know they are in an ever-diminishing minority in their views, not least because of the ever-mounting scientific evidence that the fetus is a human being from conception forward. So, they will fight like hell to try never to have this question turned back over to the democratic process.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Careful there- you seem to be deliberately missing the point of the argument, i.e. that if human life starts at conception then there is a clear moral imperative to protect that life. I happen to disagree with both the assumption behind that logic and with the conclusion that abortion must be outlawed (for one thing, it's far from clear that outlawing abortion is effective at preventing it) but the logic is there, and does not require religion to see.

I'm not missing that point. I thought it was understood on both sides that the disagreement is over how we define human life and not whether exterminating human life is moral or not. A big reason why I objected so strongly to the slavery analogy is because there can be no real debate about whether slaves were human beings, whereas I think there is legitimate disagreement about when human life begins. Obviously, the argument that you are dealing with human life is weakest at the moment of conception and gets progressively stronger as you move towards birth, but at no point during that progression could the argument be made that the unborn is every bit as human as a person forced into slavery.

 

[NankerPhelge]

I'm not missing that point. I thought it was understood on both sides that the disagreement is over how we define human life and not whether exterminating human life is moral or not. A big reason why I objected so strongly to the slavery analogy is because there can be no real debate about whether slaves were human beings, whereas I think there is legitimate disagreement about when human life begins. Obviously, the argument that you are dealing with human life is weakest at the moment of conception and gets progressively stronger as you move towards birth, but at no point during that progression could the argument be made that the unborn is every bit as human as a person forced into slavery.

Really? When does a person become "more" or "fully" human? As I understand your logic, it might be OK to kill a 1 year old because "at no point during that progression [can] the argument be made" that the 1 year old is every bit as human as an adult? By the way, I think that is called an unsupported conclusory statement.

 

[pkt77242]

No, not really. The issue is not about "50/50." Survey after survey indicates that a solid majority of Americans are against abortion in general, and even more overwhelmingly against abortion in a number of circumstances in which it is now legal, ranging from "to protect the mental health of the mother" right up to late term and partial-birth abortions. The idea that 50% or more of Americans are pro-abortion (or "pro-choice" as they sanitize it) is simply an oft-repeated mantra of the pro-aborts to try to maintain their position based on some sort of warped view of morality that if a majority of the people are for it, it must be right. This idea that majority opinion = moral correctness has been disproven countless times throughout history. Along with the notion that if the Supreme Court approves of a position, that is the end of the question and a final moral imprimatur.
See, e.g., the Dred Scott case.

That the pro-aborts realize that they are really in the minority can be shown by the vigorousness with which they have fought to prevent the overturning of Roe v Wade and its progeny. If the pro-aborts were truly in the majority position they pretend to be, then overturning Roe v. Wade would be practically insignificant. This would not make abortion illegal. Instead, rather than the question being mandated by 9 lawyers on the Supreme Court, the issue would simply be returned to the legislatures of the individual states. If the pro-aborts are the majority they claim, then their abortion "rights" would be in no danger. Even if the split is 50/50, abortion should remain legal in about 1/2 the states. But, the pro-aborts know they are in an ever-diminishing minority in their views, not least because of the ever-mounting scientific evidence that the fetus is a human being from conception forward. So, they will fight like hell to try never to have this question turned back over to the democratic process.

Shockingly these polls disagree with you.

Abortion

Also just because someone has a different view then you doesn't mean that they have a warped view of morality.

The seconded bolded part fails miserably, are you sure you like the consitution? Even if you were right about the numbers (which I just proved you are wrong) the many can not take away the right of the few when it is protected (which Roe vs Wade decided).

 

[Rhode Irish]

No, not really. The issue is not about "50/50." Survey after survey indicates that a solid majority of Americans are against abortion in general, and even more overwhelmingly against abortion in a number of circumstances in which it is now legal, ranging from "to protect the mental health of the mother" right up to late term and partial-birth abortions. The idea that 50% or more of Americans are pro-abortion (or "pro-choice" as they sanitize it) is simply an oft-repeated mantra of the pro-aborts to try to maintain their position based on some sort of warped view of morality that if a majority of the people are for it, it must be right. This idea that majority opinion = moral correctness has been disproven countless times throughout history. Along with the notion that if the Supreme Court approves of a position, that is the end of the question and a final moral imprimatur.
See, e.g., the Dred Scott case.

That the pro-aborts realize that they are really in the minority can be shown by the vigorousness with which they have fought to prevent the overturning of Roe v Wade and its progeny. If the pro-aborts were truly in the majority position they pretend to be, then overturning Roe v. Wade would be practically insignificant. This would not make abortion illegal. Instead, rather than the question being mandated by 9 lawyers on the Supreme Court, the issue would simply be returned to the legislatures of the individual states. If the pro-aborts are the majority they claim, then their abortion "rights" would be in no danger. Even if the split is 50/50, abortion should remain legal in about 1/2 the states. But, the pro-aborts know they are in an ever-diminishing minority in their views, not least because of the ever-mounting scientific evidence that the fetus is a human being from conception forward. So, they will fight like hell to try never to have this question turned back over to the democratic process.

1. Stop calling people "pro-abortion." Nobody is that. That is the type of inflammatory rhetoric I was talking about before.

2. Women overwhelmingly support their own reproductive rights - overwhelmingly. Maybe it is a framing issue, but most Americans do not oppose women having the right to make her own decisions about her body. I see that as very different than supporting abortion - you can respect a woman's right to have an abortion but not support the decision to actually do so. So maybe you are correct that a majority of Americans are "against abortion" - I'd have to see the poll. But Americans are definitely, overwhelmingly, against an outright ban on abortion.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Really? When does a person become "more" or "fully" human? As I understand your logic, it might be OK to kill a 1 year old because "at no point during that progression [can] the argument be made" that the 1 year old is every bit as human as an adult? By the way, I think that is called an unsupported conclusory statement.

Really. I explained that in my post. When you are born you are a human. Once you are a human, that's it. Before you are born, it is a matter opinion, and I don't think that is sufficient grounds to deny women the right to make choices about their own bodies.