Why Abortion in Case of Rape is a Non-Argument

Snapz-Pro-XScreenSnapz033

1a. Do you think it’s wrong to rob a grocery store?

1b. Do you think it’s wrong to rob a grocery store if your child is about to starve to death?

2a Is killing a man wrong?

2b Is killing a man wrong in self-defense?

Opinions are likely to split sharply between scenarios a and b. But the people who think that it may be okay to steal food to save your child’s life don’t believe that robbing grocery stores should be legal.

Nor do they believe that we should 1. Legalize robbing grocery stores or 2. legalize murder to avoid stigmatizing these extreme cases. Nor are they necessarily hypocrites for making an exception in a situation where there is something bigger at stake.

Both of these are examples of scenarios where the ‘wrong’ in question is overshadowed by a greater ‘wrong’. It’s an open debate whether that is the value judgement in abortions that occur because of rape, but that is the logic that people who otherwise oppose abortion use.

As Ed Morrissey points out, the left invariably defaults to arguing “abortion in cases of rape or incest” because it’s safe ground, even though it’s like arguing “convenience store robbery in case child is starving to death”.

Pregnancies caused by rape — which accounted for less than 1% of all abortions in 2004, according to the CDC, and 1% according to the abortion-friendly Guttmacher Institute in 2005. Cases of incest accounted for even fewer abortions in both reports.

The left keeps trolling opponents with the rape and incest argument because it keeps getting away with it, especially when it ambushes not especially bright politicians with this question.

Whether or not abortion should be legal cannot and should not be defined by an extreme scenario. Just as we wouldn’t argue the legality of convenience store robberies in general based around that “child starving to death” exception. Or the legality or marijuana based on medical marijuana. Those are outliers.

It’s always possible to create an extreme scenario in which an otherwise unacceptable act becomes acceptable to many people because of extenuating circumstances, but that’s a sophomoric argument unworthy of being taken seriously.

Principled people and ideologues think in absolutes. All black and white with no shades of grey. Most people however operate more contextually with plenty of shades of grey. They think about the situation rather than the principle. Having debates about the principle is fine, but it establishes nothing when both sides have few if any principles in common.

Having debates about the reality of the thing is far more meaningful if we want to establish what people are prepared to find acceptable and the way to do that is through an honest look at the facts.

Snapz-Pro-XScreenSnapz031

  • Dan Mesa/AZ

    Rape and incest is violence perpetuated against an innocent victim,
    which of course is also true for abortion since unborn children are innocent but
    have the ultimate act of violence perpetuated against them. BTW, isn’t incest nearly always rape?

    PS- you can’t imagine the delight I had when my son, a Jr. in High School, had
    FPM’s icon on his computer desktop….one of 5 icons on his desktop.

    • harv555

      “Unborn Children” is a useless word, and only used to rile up the religious fanatics. Any egg in a woman’s body is an “unborn child.” How useless. You do not believe in the word of God, as stated in Genesis, and which I quoted below.

  • DogmaelJones1

    “Rape and incest is [sic] violence perpetuated against an innocent victim, which of course is also true for abortion since unborn children are innocent but have the ultimate act of violence perpetuated against them.” First, the term “unborn children” is an oxymoron. It is an invalid concept. There are fetuses, which in the first two trimesters, cannot be called “children” because they are not only unconscious, but cannot sustain their own lives once out of the womb. They are the equivalent of appendages in a woman’s body. As an arm or a hand cannot sustain itself without a body, neither can a fetus. Secondly, abortions are justified in cases of rape and involuntary or forced incest (because not all instances of incest are involuntary) because the victim of a rape owns her own body and it has been expropriated by a rapist. She is left with the unwanted and unjust consequences of that initiation of force on her person. She has a right to dispose of it. Victims of rape do that fairly quickly, and don’t wait until the third trimester or at the 11th hour. Thirdly, the term “innocent victim” is a redundant term. Being a victim implies innocence. I do get tired of that old sawhorse. Lastly, being pro-abortion doesn’t necessarily mean one is a leftist trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. I get tired of
    that argument, too, because it’s so hackneyed and is the usual tactic of
    “rightists” searching for another crime committed by the left. The left is guilty of a Sears catalogue of crimes, and the last thing they would ever uphold or champion is the individual right of a woman to own her own body. They don’t, and this is a policy or idea shared by left and right.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      A fetus is a developing child. A woman’s arm will not develop into a separate individual with his or her own consciousness.

      • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

        There will be honest and impassioned differences within the conservative/libertarian camp on this issue. Those that accept abortion prior to signs of sentient activity generally hold that until the fetus has a brain it isn’t yet a person. Those that see conception as the point of personhood, regard the mere physiological development long before the existence of a nervous system or brain as sufficient. It’s doubtful that either side can satisfactorily express their viewpoint in a comment or even an article to convince the other side to reconsider.

        • Patriot077

          Have you watched any of Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s videos?
          A fetus in the first trimester will move away from the intrusive abortion tools inserted into the womb. Violently thrash away from them when touched.

      • DogmaelJones1

        A fetus isn’t a child or a person until it can sustain its own life. Then, and only until then, does it acquire rights. The issue of “preemies” is another issue, and that’s one that is usually raised by anti-abortionists. But even in an incubator or other device that aids a “preemie” in breathing, it has become self-sustaining. An acorn is not an oak tree. It’s a potential oak tree, not an actual oak tree. I think you’re missing the point, Daniel. It’s the only part of the ride I can’t share with you.

        • Smoking Hamster

          A child can’t sustain its life either. A disabled person can’t. Are these people less valuable and worthy to be denied life support? Will fetus’s magically acquire human rights when technology advances to transplant embryos or artificial wombs are developed?

          Consciousness doesn’t really solve the issue either. Is a 2 month old truly self aware?

          An acorn is a unique new oak plant. It is not a potential living organism; it is alive and only needs the proper nutrients to grow into an adult oak tree. Destroying turtle eggs is criminal because you are destroying living turtles and endangering rare species.

          The root difference is whether human life, especially innocent and helpless life, is fundamentally valuable and worthy of protection.

          • http://www.chaverimisrael.org Norbert Haag

            That is the indeed the outcome if you follow the argument that a human is only a human if she can sustain herself.

            the end of that chain of arguments is euthanasia.

          • A Z

            Euthanasia is such a dirty word. People have vilified it until it is a pejorative term. “Death Pathways” is much preferred as it has an academic ring to it.

            Death Pathways is the new byword for discussion in the public forums until it acquires to much pejorative baggage. The left will promote use of the word euthanasia again or come up with a new euphemism!

            Euphemisms are always the retreat of the Left.

            See their flip flops on their self description of progressive (circa 1920) to liberal (1960) back to progressive again.

          • A Z

            Britain’s Socialized Medicine Introduces Death Pathways for Children

            http://moonbattery.com/?p=21725

            “Sorry…

            The page you have requested does not exist or is no longer available.”

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html#ixzz2DcUKj73D

          • Moa

            > “Destroying turtle eggs is criminal because you are destroying living turtles and endangering rare species.”

            Fantastic argument there. The same people who would throw themselves in front of bulldozers to save a clutch of turtle eggs will argue viciously for the right to murder 55 million growing human babies.

            Nice job amigo.

          • nomoretraitors

            Also the same people who will whine and cry about “cruel and unusual punishment” every time a murdering thug is executed

        • A Z

          Well, an honest and open debate without rancor.

          +1 for that.

        • harv555

          Moreover, there is a direct statement in the beginning of Genesis regarding the “Breath of Life,” which the bible believers always want to ignore. Basically, life begins when G-d breathes into the baby’s nostrils. It is a clear statement in Genesis, not to be denied. Yet those who are religious and who are anti abortion always try to disregard this clear statement in the good book.

          • Pablo

            “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…” Jeremiah 1:5

            What you describe in Genesis refers to Adam, not all mankind. “Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”

            Are you seriously asserting that a fetus is not alive, and do you truly believe that babies come from “the dust of the ground” or are you just trying to mock the faithful?

          • harv555

            As G-d wrote in Genesis, the life does not occur until the breath of life is moved through the nostrils. The fetus and the zygote are merely parts of the mothers body. You religious zealots have no concern for reality, only for your religious zeal. The problem is that you want to foist your religious zeal on everyone using the power of the state. That is where you are not conservatives but statists, liberals, Marxists. You do not belong in the Republican Party unless you do not want to use the power of the state to promote your religious beliefs onto those who do not agree with you.

          • Pablo

            ADAM’s life did not occur until God breathed life into his nostrils. You can either cite the text that shows Him doing the same with Cain and Abel, or you can stop being silly.

            I am not a religious zealot, but I have read the book and I know what it says, as you pretend to. I am also not a Republican, but I do thank you for taking the time to craft your little fantasy about me.

        • Pablo

          A fetus is, without question, a nascent human being. You can quibble over definitions all you like but there’s no getting past that one.

          As for acorns, they’re seeds. Once planted and growing, like a fetus is, they are oaks indeed.

          • harv555

            The issue is when does life occur which should be protected by the state. Statists (Marxists, communists, controllers, Obama types) want the state to promote their own personal values. Pro lifers want to do the same thing, but hide their statist views with religious zeal.

    • laura r

      thankyou. no need to continue the suffering.

    • Smoking Hamster

      A fetus is a separate and unique human being. Sure a woman has a right to her own body but not at the expense of another.

      Rape is an extenuating case but in all other cases the woman willingly took the risk of having the child.

      If I invite a guest into my house and he annoys me do I have a right to shoot him on the spot? Does denying that right make me anti-property rights?

    • Kenneth Sikorski

      There is not a single child born alive, that can stay alive, without the overly intrusive help of a parent or another adult. So ends the meme of ”a child which cannot sustain itself outside of the womb can be legitimately terminated inside the womb”.

      • A Z

        So we can abort them all, until their coming of age ceremony?

    • http://www.chaverimisrael.org Norbert Haag

      I tend to agree regarding the crimes of the left. I only think that a Sears catalogue is not big enough to fit them all even in tiny typo.

    • nomoretraitors

      A 1-year-old baby can’t sustain it’s own life either. If it is not fed, it will not be able to crawl out of the crib, go to the refridgerator and get its own food. It relies completely on its parents to provide sustenance

      • choiceone

        You people who claim that an embryo or fetus is no different than a
        neonate in its type of dependency are objectively, scientifically
        incorrect.

        An embryo or ore-viable fetus depends on the blood
        circulation in and the homeostasis of a particular woman’s body for its
        continued life. It can only live by disabling a person’s immune system,
        having oxygen and nutrients transferred away from that person’s blood
        to itself, and having homeostasis provided by that particular person’s
        body. If the woman dies, her blood ceases to circulate: the embryo or
        pre-viable fetus will die automatically then, for if it stays inside her
        body, it will be unable to access oxygen or nutrients, but if it is
        removed, it will be unable to access oxygen or nutrients as a premie
        would.

        No neonate ever lives this way, in completely biological
        dependence on being biologically connected to the body of a particular
        live person. The born can receive their oxygen and nutrients from
        sources equally available to all persons. Oxygen comes from air or
        medical equipment, not a person’s body. If the mother dies, a neonate
        can survive without breast milk, on coconut milk, soy milk or other
        sources. Anyone sufficiently mature can care for it, and people can
        TAKE TURNS doing so. The neonate is socially dependent, but not
        biologically dependent.

        The same distinction can be made for
        types of conjoined twins. Most cases involve two heads sharing one
        partly doubled body. Each head has the capacity to take in oxygen and
        nutrients separatately from common sources and to sustain the body’s
        homeostasis. But the case of parasitic and host twins is different.
        The parasitic twin is fully contained in the host twin’s body and
        receives oxygen, nutrients, etc., from the host twin’s blood through
        biological connection.

        And not one person ever claims that the
        surgical removal of a parasitic twin from a host twin’s body is murder
        even though the parasitic twin automatically dies if removed.

        I’m
        sick of nitwits claiming that unique DNA is the marker of an individual
        human being. Pregnancy is NOT caretaking. It is the creation of an
        individual human organism that becomes capable of functioning as a human being when the process of pregnancy is sufficiently completed. Women are not containers. They are creators.

    • Habbgun

      I believe you are wrong on this. A fetus is completely different than a sperm or egg cell. It may not be able to hire a lawyer and represent itself in court but it will do the fundamental thing that the adult body will do. It will create differentiated cells that will allow it to be a complete, integrated functional organism. It is fully developed in that sense and can not be discounted as a human. Do I become somehow less human if I am in a coma? I doubt it.

      With that said there is a libertarian argument for abortion and that is how much the state gets a say. The truth is although I know abortion to be terribly wrong I am not at ease with police or prosecutors who are comfortable pulling a screwed up teenager off of an abortionists table and would prefer that kind of law enforcement. There are enough animals out there for real police work and I’d hate to have the kind of cops who would rather focus on pregnant teens instead of thugs. The cops I have known would prefer that they deal with violent crime and not social issues..

      The problem is that the Left isn’t arguing about the limits of the state at all. What it is saying is that we should be applauding abortion. That a woman’s will to economic success is more important than whatever other biological qualities she may have. Qualities which the left abhors anyway since the State is more qualified to educate and protect the child anyway. Abortion dehumanizes the fetus but even better it asks what relation a baby has to a fetus and so on. Abortion for the Left is a means to an end.

      Abortion in case of rape and incest is an outlier. It doesn’t show there is a reason to think abortion is a positive. It just piles horror upon horror.

      I can also give a scenario where the Left will forbid abortion and I believe it will happen in our lifetime. A moslem rapes a non-moslem and moslems protest that the desire to abort is due to islamophobia and racism. Pay off a few key politicians, college professors and professional feminists and suddenly the worst thing that could happen would be that the victim would abort the fetus.

  • Andrew_S

    Abortion is an age old practice and one that lends its presence when human societies reach a relative state of comfort and stability. I believe the ancient practice not withstanding individual or community based decisions to deal with problematic situations is simply a case of understanding how cultures form, rise reach their pinnacles and their demise. We have enough true history to understand the process and the markers.

    There is little difference between the practice of exposure (which incidentally is still a common method regardless of presentation used by the poor for lack of resources and education as a means to excise their problems but more generally and usually a decision influence based on economics.and expedient personal choices) and abortion.

    As pointed out by one poster the oak seed needs to germinate before becoming an oak tree. Once germination takes place the oak if not subject to impediments will make its merry way to becoming what it was meant to be, an oak tree. Therefore we know that once any specie of life is fertilized it will also follow the path of the oak tree to fulfill its destiny.

    For humans the only way to procreate marks the difference between endogenous and autonomous nurturing. The oak tree has all it needs from conception, the human requires assistance throughout the prenatal and post natal process preferably a volunteered one. Just like the oak we are assured that once fertilized it will be, barring any impediment a resulting human, preferably a good one depending on your leanings either left or right, color, wrong or right side of the tracks, geographical location and political hemisphere to denote those who are already established to judge the ethical or existential dimension.

    We may predict within a certain degree of confidence an outcome, be it a policy enriched influence such as in the US. Or depending on your geographical location a political/religious mandate or method.

    In the West or affluent hemisphere the argument is fundamentally from an economic perspective and influence. It may be easily discerned by the federal reserves own research funding with abstract public papers. If still available a search for one such document known as ‘Endogenous population growth, WP630′, (read it to believe it, and understand the modern method of politics: find your own way there), which explains the argument, the ethics and the method quite well from a Malthusian perspective. However in forming that argument we use the squash the bug concept of dealing and debating an argument with the helplessly innocent and the offer of a purely altruistic choice burdened on that simple innocence. In simple terms an economic sacrifice. It is or is it an interesting idea ?.

    In as much as my personal opinion regarding the issue of abortion in general, it is not withstanding the many minority poster child arguments anything but simply a cruel method of contraception. The further along the line of time the decision is made the crueler the argument. Do not want kids , do not take a chance take a visit to the many available resources that will gladly pull your plumbing equipment both male and females. Males should be extra careful even if firing blanks, the law makes a provision that any sire will do.and need not even be geographically present, or even matched by DNA.

    • A Z

      Are you an economist. Your writing is hard to understand but interesting.

      • Andrew_S

        Malthus offered a number of treatise, his work in text like many others such as Locke, Beauvier, Black, Hobbes, Csaz, even Marx along with a myriad of others follow a spectrum of studies that are considered by the cream of academia and research defacto standards as proof of concept. Especially regarding humans. I neither ascribe to nor endorse any, other than by reference.. However do take note that in economics Malthus still is a standard that is used as a guide for the First, Second and and reformatory Third corporate Welfare theorem. The US is considered a stage two Welfare economy, there is a stark difference between what people believe and what is true. Economies of state also endorse the practice, you will know this if you ever visit WA, DC. Congress is a hive of economic spreadsheets and budgets, being traded. Take the time to observe the behavior where people are defined in terms of housing stock, value and cost. Also examine your county fiduciary policies, they are all housed in the same building along with the policy makers for your county. They too have quota’s and funding to ensure success..

    • A Z

      You realize that no one is going to read it

      Efficiency with Endogenous Population Growth
      Mikhail Golosov, Larry E. Jones, and Michèle Tertilt∗
      Working Paper 630
      January 2004

      Forget about a Barbie doll, where you pull a string and it says “Math is Hard”. That begins to describe 90% to 98% of our society.

      Screw it, see how many people bite.

      http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/wp/wp630.pdf

      Fun begins at page 8 or 9. I kind of hope I don’t need knowledge of stochastic series because that is where i stepped out. Time to go back.

      The shortcut to understanding a few of the issues may be Jared Diamond’s book ‘Collapse’.

      • Andrew_S

        :) Well observed, your referring citation is on the mark in so many dimensions and yet I can but only lament that your statement of people falling asleep before the second paragraph echoes so well as a matter of observation. ….What is of course interesting based on the output of the population management industries is quite simply to understand the method. We always of course need to have a natural catalyst. The more fascinating aspect to the document remains hidden within those specific paragraphs quoted. The use of what is termed technologies and agents not withstanding the natural mindset of females themselves is astoundingly simple once the concepts are understood. As they are basically policy driven and continually enforced while further funded with no limit to capacity to ensure success. Gramsci’s methodology fits well in what has been co-opted as in anything but name, ‘The long march through culture’.

        We deal with a flaw in the political Kabuki theater. practices of statecraft under management. See the congessional record ascribed to politician ‘Trafficant’ of I believe 1987. That is who indeed pulls Barbies strings, it is further argued that ‘herd’ as conceptual behavior is predicated for an outcome. So we deal with the fascinating subject of social engineering and the effects of changing morality.

        Books such as you have quoted follow the genre of Rachael Carsons ‘Silent Spring’…right up to science Fiction scenarios as depicted in ‘GreyBeard’. Yet all deal with an uncomfortable subject under the auspices of a system that is ruled by those who need only control the financial system. Therefore with such a scenario we should take heed that the well heeled no matter their creed will develop the technologies and ideations to preserve their own hereditary goals for the future. Some of those ideas and projections are considered nightmares for human kind and the many will never know the difference given specific social trajectories. One which the likes of Margaret Sangar and our modern day sample equivalent depicted herein pictorially holding the symbolic key to human kinds future for her masters.

        The understanding of technologies is not a hard subject since anything that produces a result or profit whether personal or financial is considered a technology. Whether it is a method of manipulation or some creation of breakthrough science, they are all technologies and sciences. Even religion is this perspective takes on its true character as a de’nominat’ional value, which if we study the authors of the original paper, ‘Tertlit’ goes on in other papers to ascribe methods to capitalize better the affinity for humans to the phenomena.

        .I state this with the idea that all science is rooted in the religion of modern day economics. My point however is to understand the words ‘herd’ and ‘heritability’. To understand this form of statecraft as the ultimate beneficiary we would have to pursue an original master by the name of Lycurgus. His image is given a place of honor in the congressional halls and chambers. Perhaps some may find solace in taking the time to study him. His history is one that is regurgitated and practiced repeatedly throughout history, often with monumentally fatal results.

        Regarding the original article and your willingness to quote it. The technologies used are a two edged sword, that are designed to cut on both strokes. What is even more morally objectionable on my part is the means and method as they are stated quite clearly and the results are self evident. The imposed legal doctrines fundamental to the argument are those of ‘Clean hands’, ‘Potency’ and ‘Value’, if people only understood the argument we would be half way to a positive solution for the human condition.

  • churchill

    For once, Daniel, you may have missed something. As I
    started to read your piece I began to speculate as to its destination and I was
    mistaken.

    I’m reminded of the Legal Maxim, “Hard cases make bad law”.
    To treat “rape and incest” as species of hard cases misses the point. Something more fundamental is at work.

    We are outraged over abortion because it denies the humanity
    of the infant child and the right it has to have the protection of its life
    treated as a sacred obligation fixed upon us. The child is innocent and its
    innocence is abiding notwithstanding the imperfections of one of its parents.
    It knows nothing of rape or incest – it is simply alive.

    Some of you may not know it but Greenfield has his own blog:
    http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.uk/.
    The topics will often be the same as here, but he can spread his wings a bit.

    churchill

    • Daniel Greenfield

      That’s the principle of the thing yes, but most people don’t make decisions based on principle. They use circles of empathy.

    • harv555

      Excuse me, when you say infant child, are you referring to the zygote or the fetus, or the infant child after birth. You are so much of a religious fanatic that you do not see clearly that a zygote is not an infant child, nor is a fetus. There are similarities, but not the sameness needed for the State to pass laws protecting the rights of the zygote and the fetus. You people are statists wanting to foist your deeply held religious beliefs on others. You masquerade as conservatives, when you actually are big government, statists, wanting to control others with nasty laws.

      • Nathanael Crapo

        Murder is the deprivation (or stealing) of future life. Murder is not always immoral such as in cases like taking a old pigs life for the bacon that you eat. But if you are trying to tell me that it’s the case with a “potential person” then your wrong. You’re completely and utterly wrong. When a person is born they live their life and then with high probability produce offspring which are “potential people” of their own. When ever a women has an abortion that whole gene line is cut and it never exists. So abortionists are not only depriving a single life at a time but a whole world of possibilities life. It’s the same thing as the butterfly affect. Lets say your average joe went back to the year 1912, do you think he would have the moral right to tell Germany everything that would happen in the “Great War”? You’re probably thinking “They would have no right to change content of that history because of the long term effects on the course of events.” and your right, they wouldn’t have the right just the opportunity to change things for the worst or better. Women think they are changing their situation for the better by relieving their burden of carrying a child but what they are actually doing is killing thousands and thousands of possible people to come from their roots even though one of them could be the one to prevent a world war three, cure cancer, or even unite the world under one government. So tell me do you believe that women have the “right” to step on those butterflies, to crush that future life force?

        • harv555

          What gives you the right to make this decision for a woman, a person not yourself? You become a Statist, wanting to use the power of government to project your own deeply held religious view. For me, I believe in the Old Testament, Genesis, when God said that a fetus becomes a person when he or she begins to breath, the “breath of life.” Hopefully you know your Genesis, right from the beginning. But I do not want to debate religion with you. I just want to prevent you from foisting your deeply held, passionate beliefs on others who do not share your religious beliefs. But practically, there is a limit regarding what the State and Laws can do. I just want to prevent you from forcing other people to adhere to your own, personal, deeply held, but personal points of view using the power of the state. You see, I am a conservative, not a Statist.

  • A Z

    I am worried of a slippery slope scenario. The LGBT lobby said gay marriage would not lead to polygamy, but we know that as a lie. The cases are already before the court.

    Given the Left’s love of their creation, multi-culturalism, they can say with utter conviction that a small child is not a person. Among the Lisu in SE Asia do not formally name newborns for 3 days after birth. The baby is not considered human until such time. The Karen do not consider a child human until their ears are pierced. I have heard of one liberal talk show on a radio station in a major metro area host foam at the mouth so badly that he advocated post birth abortion. I believe it was Jay Marvin, who use to label callers he disagreed with as “brain stems”. So I can seriously see a slippery slope with liberals advocating post birth abortions. It would be part of their “death pathways”.

  • nomoretraitors

    Too bad Steinam’s mother didn’t so the same

  • harv555

    Unfortunately, conservative republicans are afraid of upsetting the “base,” which believes fervently in the pro life issue. This base wants to pass laws that prohibit abortion. Well, that is statism, the use of the state to promote your religious views, and deny the similarly strong views of others. It is legitimate to confront the pro lifers regarding the issues of rape and incest. These questions bring out in public the stern ideology of certain candidates, for example what occurred in the last election with Murdock. The pseudo conservatives who want to use the state to promote their anti abortion stance are just as bad as the liberals who want to use the state to promote their beliefs. Can we be honest about these issues. A true conservative is more libertarian, and unwilling to use state power even to promote a person’s strong views.

    • nomoretraitors

      Should we repeal laws prohibiting murder and robbery, since that promotes the strong view that these activities are wrong?

  • harv555

    The main point is that the state should not be involved with something which is as controversial as abortion. At best the country is split 50-50, and probably more like 80% pro choice. To create national laws against abortion would be totally contrary to conservative principles. The coalition between the Republican Party and the pro lifers is bound for disarray and contention.

  • chelmer

    You haven’t lived until you’ve heard the eloquent plea for life from a man–a good man, a father of children, an upstanding and moral and kind person–explain to Chris Plante on WMAL radio one morning that his father was a rapist who attacked his mother. His mother became pregnant, gave birth to the child, and gave him up for adoption. Guess what? That child now lives a productive, exemplary life. To assume that the life of a child conceived in such a hideous way has no value is to not logical People are so blithe in negating the humanity of others.

  • Dusquene Whistler

    You want to kill the product of rape? Fine, but somebody better be going to jail and “he said he loved me” is not rape.