Yeah, heres the thing, a dependent human life that the woman created is not even loosely comparable to your analogy of a fire or disease. For one, fires and parasites aren't rapidly moving towards sentience (or perhaps attained a degree of cognitive activity ad sensation in 2nd trimester). You will probably say that this is 'irrelevant' and we're just going to disagree on that point.
I suppose so. I will always believe that women should be FREE to maintain full medical authority over their own bodies no matter what. No fetus is more important than an already established human being, ever.
For the most pro-lifers say that sentience is not a relevant factor in abortion issues .. yet here you are saying it is, so if we go with your ideas than abortion should be legal until at least the 3rd trimester, prior to that the zef has no sentience.
Let's hear it. I would love to discuss a "pro-lifer" who supports an exemption for rape and how they arrive at that. - - - Updated - - - BTW, back on topic.... I would ask "pro-life" Republican voters to consider my OP....and ask yourself if a "far-out, outlandisth" possibility might explain it.... that the Republican Party actually DOESN'T want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Certainly sentience is not the only relevant factor. However, you are quoting me out of context. In that post I am arguing against later abortion in which sentience because an additional piece of the puzzle.
Read above. It is a matter of political prudence to allow an exception for rape rather than derived from philosophical principles. It is no different then Southern and Mid-Western states 'settling' for ~20 week cut off point for abortion since it is still a further restriction even though its not the ideal.
Which is exactly how the current law stands, while federal law does not place restrictions onto abortion at any time it does allow states to impose restrictions if they so wish, and as far as I am aware there is no state that allows elective abortions after 24 weeks. So in effect I don't really see what you arguing against.
I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to grasp. If the only possibility of further restricting abortion is to make an exception for rape then I am willing to do that. It's quite simple. There are 2 options: 1) campaign on overturning R v W with no exception for rape. Result: things stay the same. 2) campaign to restrict abortions to the first trimester except for rapes. Result: higher probability of passing because it aligns with the majority of Americans views.
States have been trying to impose restrictions on the time line for abortion to go below 24 weeks without restricting abortion entirely. Those cases are being evaluated by the courts right now. That is what I am ultimately arguing for. The states right to restrict abortion before 24 weeks.
I still think that in both cases it will create an air of pro-lifers believing they can achieve anything, there is no way the majority of pro-lifers will allow a reduction of the timeline for elective abortion to stick at anything other than conception .. hence why pro-choice people fight so very hard against any changes to the current legislation. The history of the pro-life movement when it comes to legislation is knee deep in deception (the UVVA is one example) so why should anyone trust a single thing they propose now?
Willing to support politicians that will do so. It is up to me to express my beliefs through my representatives. I am not a pregnant woman, sorry. Though, by that standard, only US soldiers should have a say in who goes to war.
It's not 'me' or other pro-lifers that you have to trust. Rather, it's the will of the people who overwhelmingly support the legality of abortion; thus insuring that R v W would never be abolished in its entirety. By that same token, the Majority of Americans also favor unspecified restrictions (not absolute prohibition) on abortion. Furthermore, this 'air' of triumph among pro-lifers that you speculate about, and I think you are right, is limited to what, 20% of Americans at best? That's hardly enough to overturn an amendment.
Is the reason that the majority of Americans support Roe because they are already content with the restrictions it allows the states to impose, and also allows those who would stand for no abortion at all and those who would stand for abortion at any time for any reason to have their place.
It's hard to say because Gallup doesn't specify in their questioning. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx The most detailed info from that polling is that: 26% say legal in all cases, 52% legal in only some cases, 20% illegal in all cases. According to a recent CNN poll of only 1,000 surveyors, for whatever that's worth, 70% said that they do NOT support overturning RvW. I would really like to see an extensive poll that breaks down the age ranges.
The only poll I can find that shows the voting by age split is here http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/Generational-Differences-Abortion-Narrow.aspx
Is it POSSIBLE there is a relationship between polling that shows a majority want Roe kept intact.....and the fact Republican Justicies to the Supreme Court have KEPT it intact.... despite the PROMISES of the GOP to the "pro-lifers" for 30+ years that "If you just keep electing our guy for President he'll appoint Justices who'll overturn Roe"??? Again, I wonder if some "pro-lifers" aren't starting to feel like they are playing 3-card Monte every election year and the GOP is the dealer???
That's not how it works. Dems and Reps put SC court justices on the bench so they can vote for/ against RvW, among other issues, if/when it comes up again. They can't just change it themselves.
5 Justices...a majority. Appointed by "pro-life" Republican Presidents who ran on the Party's promise (still being promised to last November by Romney) that "If you elect me, I'll appoint Justices who'll be 'strict Constitutionalists'...i.e. Justices who'll overturn Roe." 5 is a majority on the Supreme Court. So why hasn't some "pro-life" group found a case and run with it to the USSC to get Roe overturned??? "Just one more election"??? How about another round of 3-card monte?....all you have to is find the Lady and you'll win big!
Roe V. Wade is never going to be overturned, not in this lifetime.\ So, why do pols send the message, "elect me, and I'll appoint "conservative" judges?" Why, indeed? Why do they make abortion an issue at all, when there is nothing they can do about it anyway? To get votes, of course.
I just find it interesting that after 30+ years of false promises....or atleast the past decade since Roberts and Alito.....that the "pro-lifers" still believe in the GOP's promises on Roe. I guess it's a desperate false hope and the fact they are rightwingers on other issues so they're going to vote GOP loyally anyway.
