Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,101
- 245
Wheres the "up until the time of birth" part?
Seriously? Did you not read this part?
We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.
Im not reading that as "we want to give women the right to have an abortion until the kid pops out". I have never heard any democratic representative advocate for abortion until birth.
XXXXX
Did you know that, according to Roe v Wade, the state has a legitimate interest from the beginning in protecting the life of fetus? Can you explain why you, among others, constantly try to tell me that a fetus does not have a right to life when the very decision you use to argue your position says exactly the opposite? As far as I know not one single person has actually made any legitimate argument that anyone's right to privacy trumps another person's right to life.
Then we have Planned Parenthood v Casey, where the court rejected the third trimester restrictions it approved, which is the legal cutoff under Roe. They essentially retried Roe, and held that, if a woman could find a doctor that agreed that her mental health was jeopardized, could get an abortion at any point during the pregnancy. Strangely enough, it also found that the state had a right to demand that a woman understand exactly what an abortion does.
If you like I can go through the entire history of abortion cases showing you how pro abortion activist continually chip away at the interest of the state in protecting the life of the fetus. XXXXX If, on the other hand, you want to learn the truth, I suggest you start by reading this story in the LA Times, which is about as far from a conservative paper as it is possible to get.
But here’s the problem. The bishops aren’t among those Americans who think only second- and third-trimester abortions are offensive. They have a much more purist position akin to Akin’s -- though they are willing to reluctantly accept “passage of a constitutional amendment that will protect unborn children's right to life to the maximum degree possible.” As I wrote at the time: “Tactically, the church might emphasize the offensiveness of late-term abortions because that is a way to get Americans to take a ‘second look’ at abortion in general. But the church can’t acknowledge that some abortions are worse than others without undercutting its teaching that life begins at conception.”
I think the same problem exists in reverse. In a column in the New York Times on Sunday, Ross Douthat warned Democrats who have been exulting in Todd Akin’s embarrassment that they “have a tendency to forget that the public doesn’t necessarily agree with them. Only 22 percent of Americans would ban abortion in cases of rape or incest, according to Gallup. But that’s an exceptional number for exceptional circumstances. The broader polling shows a country persistently divided, with women roughly as likely to take the anti-abortion view as men.... The polling also shows plenty of cases where public opinion cuts strongly against the pro-choice side. Large majorities support bans on second- and third-trimester abortion, on sex-selective abortion and on the controversial ‘partial birth’ procedure.”
Can abortion extremists attack other extremists? - latimes.com