Very well said. It should also be said that where McCain stands, roe v. wade should be over turned. That would make abortion illegal. End of discussion. The woman would have no choice. Period. That walks all over the pro-lifers who are willing to compromise on when life begins. In a McCain world the choice is made for you. You have none. That's something else to consider when choosing your candidate along with the fact that the conservatives only need one more appointment to make their dreams of a no choice America a reality.
Absolutely, I don't have any statistics in front of me, but I would imagine that most people who side on pro-life side believe that life begins at conception, otherwise, they probably wouldn't be pro-life. There might be a few that would want some exceptions to the rule that McCain wants. But I can't imagine being pro-life and not wanting Roe v Wade overturned (which is very unlikely to be overturned in all reality).
Actually this presidential election will decide that. John McCain only needs to appoint one more judge to tip the balance and overturn it. Thanks to the Bush appointments we are a LOT closer than most Americans realize to it being overturned. Pro-lifers don't care if the pregnancy resulted from rape, incest, or whatever. They don't even care if the life of the mother is threatened. They don't want there to even be an argument. You have no choice. That's it. But then they try to paint pro-choicers as extremists who only want the death of little babies. In reality the pro-choicers are the ONLY ones willing to compromise in this argument. Most pro-choicers I know (like myself) believe that if the child can live outside the womb then it should not be aborted. Some even take it as far as if it can be scientifically proven when the fetus is able to have thoughts it shouldn't be aborted.
So.. do you support the wholesale slaughter of potential human beings? Yes or No? I suppose I dont really care.. It just seems to me that existing in a society that finds that acceptable is'nt a good thing. Lets face it, for all the criticisim you have of religious people, the liberal society you favor really is quite sh@tfull. And Im not comparing that to the dark ages.. its here now.. We live in it.
oh noes, he's using emotional buzzwords like "wholesale slaughter". Let me ask you, do YOU support the wholesale slaughter of potential human beings? Because if you do you need to STOP JERKING OFF. In fact we need to make it law to ban all male masturbation in America. Those sperm cells are potential human beings.
I think you are throwing everyone into a pretty bad category. You can believe that life begins at conceptions but still want a mother to be protected if it comes to that. Another thing to note is that the vast majority of abortions are not results of the things you mentioned above. Most are done simply because they don't want to care for a child.
But that's the problem, PHP - what George said: Is spot on, regarding the McCain-Palin ticket. Palin has specifically stated so - it doesn't matter if the woman was raped, "no to abortion." And she has many followers who agree with her, on this very forum alone (just ask Simply, or Homebiz (when he gets back)). I find this particularly unconscionable, when Palin's state is the highest in the Union for per capita rapes and sexual assault. McCain himself took the opportunity to attempt a mockery of "the mother's health" with his now infamous quote gesture, at the debate. The mother's health - a "joke." George's point, I believe, is well founded.
I side with Palin on that issue as well. There are plenty of great citizens that were a result of someone terrible actions. Many were raised in other households. I know you probably disagree with me on this, but either way, I want to point out that anyone who fits in this category is a very small portion of those who have received an abortion. The problem that I am seeing is that the overwhelming majority of abortions are done out of selfishness, greed, and a lack of respect for human life.
So if we ban people's right to have control over their own body, what is going to happen for other situations? Should we not allow people to decide whether they want treatment for a terminal illness or not? We should, after all, respect human life. Should we ban people from refusing live saving blood transfusions too? If you respect human life that much then you have to play both sides of the stick here. It can't just apply to babies in the womb....Where are we going to draw the line? Personally I don't want to give the government any more control over my body than they already have, for any procedure....
How do you know? Where did you come up with this opinion? Do you have any examples? What if we use this same argument the other direction...there have been plenty of monstrous individuals whose actions were prevented by abortion. See? Plausible, but no way to prove it....
I just cannot envision an agreement with Palin, Simplyg123, anyone who would say that a woman raped, who does not want to carry the child to term, should in essence be treated as a production factory, de facto chained to a bed, to carry to term. I find this an abomination, to be honest. I don't get it.
I'd have to respectfully disagree.... Pro-lifers do believe that life begins at conception and do not want to protect the mother. How so? Because their position does not allow it. They believe that there shall be no abortion period. That removes any premise or spin to the effect that they're going to protect the mother. They've taken all the cards off the table with one simple stance. A fair argument but I'm sorry I'm going to have to keep repeating this till people get it. In a pro-life world. NO ONE CARES what your reason is. Abortion is ILLEGAL. You simply cannot do it without the threat of being punished. And yeah, we haven't even started talking about how the extreme pro-lifers want abortion FOR WHATEVER REASON to carry the same penalty as 1st degree murder.