Redstate

Just to be mischievous, let me make a point here:  isn't it possible that the labor-market needs currently being met by illegal immigrants could as easily be met by the Americans who were instead aborted?

that aborted fetuses should have been relegated to low paying, dead-end jobs? Why, better they were aborted, than subjected to that! <snark>

that the pro-Roe support slipping to below 50% in a poll where the margin of error is 3% means much if anything, it is clear that since 1992 we have made significant strides in changing the minds of Americans.

The troubling factor in the poll is that about a quarter of the respondents do not believe there should be any limits on abortion.

I remember growing up and seeing people with Down's syndrome doing some of the landscaping on a military base I lived on in high school (my dad was in the Navy).  These days, particularly with a lot of the pre-natal screening that goes on, a lot of those babies end up aborted.  I'd bet a lot of the work is now done by Mexicans.

Not all of abortion's consequences are moral, cultural, or social... there are also economic consequences.

This is great stuff, Leon.

What amazes me most is that we social conservatives as a group have never--so far as I'm aware--made any kind of a coordinated effort to dispel the garbage that Ted Kennedy spewed in his Robert Bork's America rant. It seems clear to me that most Americans' perception of a post-Roe v Wade nation are based on Kennedy's fantastically over-the-top imagery. Most Americans seem to believe that abortion would be outlawed across the nation which is baloney. I really have to believe that many pro-choicers would change their minds if they knew the truth.

This is just about the only description that fits people who kill unborn babies.  

You just equated Mexicans with Downes Syndrome. Some one is going to be mad at you...I'm not quite sure which...but someone! ;>)

The trouble is that abortion is a wedge issue with us conservatives.  I'm not personally comfortable with it, but I'm not sure enough (I'm not catholic) to overcome my natural libertarian nature and say it should be banned.  

this is a libertarian issue unless you classify homicide as a libertarian issue.

I'm not Catholic either. Does that have some relevance to the certainty one has about abortion?

Neither does libertarianism bear on this issue, since even the 'Toids recognize that a legitimate function of government is to prevent the unjust killing of humans within its borders.

The question, then, is whether unborn humans are humans, and this is one that doesn't require Catholicism (or even any religion) to answer.

This is not really a wedge issue.  Abortion would not be banned.  It would revert to the states from which it was taken by the Supreme Court.  Some states may allow baby killings.  Just like some allow gambling and prostitution.  A person could also visit another country where they allow the killing of unborn babies, just like they may allow the use of drugs that are illegal in the US.  

I was merely pointing out what I had seen - and how it related to Crank's question.

Do the math.  At a rate of 1 million abortions a year over 33 years (since Roe v. Wade was handed down), we come down to at least 33 million people not born.  At least half that total (17 million) would be 16 years old or older - potential members of the labor force.

Note that the more credible estimates of illegal immigrants is in the 12 million range.  The numbers seem to reflect that the "shortfall" has been largely made up by people who entered illegally.

The total over 33 years is over 40 million, by most estimates. Rates have been slowly declining since 1991.

It do not see enough support for making abortion

totally illegal.

Firstly, the first question is hazy and misleading, both factually and in terms of the intent of the person being surveyed. Part of the 47% opposing could be simply opposing a 3 month limit. It's like a Bush approval poll. Just because 67% disapprove does not show consensus on the exactly they DO approve of.

Notice that almost every legality question involves "up to three months". I think this explains why the Dem approval is 55% and the independent approval is 56%. What they oppose is clear but the reasoning behind that sentiment is unclear.

Notice that approval of allowing abortions is all circumstances is 24% and "some circumstances" is 53%. Together, approval for some form of legal abortion is around 90%.

I generally think people are very open to restrictions and control but the idea that a majority, or even close, support an all out ban on abortion is far fetched in my opinion.

I generally think people are very open to restrictions and control but the idea that a majority, or even close, support an all out ban on abortion is far fetched in my opinion.

It's about as far fetched as concluding that I said anything at all about support for an all out ban on abortion.

Notice that approval of allowing abortions is all circumstances is 24% and "some circumstances" is 53%. Together, approval for some form of legal abortion is around 90%.

Which would suggest that support for the principle of Roe (which is what this story is about) is actually at 24%. When you throw in some misleading information about what Roe stands for, it goes up to 49%. Not that confusing.

Most Americans seem to believe that abortion would be outlawed across the nation which is baloney. I really have to believe that many pro-choicers would change their minds if they knew the truth.

If abortion is not allowed, isn't it then administered by "choice". Whether it's the choice by a doctor, the woman, or a judge(shudder)

However, it an "unborn human" the same as a "potential human"?

The official opinion of the church has been, yes, they are the same.

The end of Roe would not make any abortions illegal whatsoever. It would return the issue to the states for legislative judgment.

Exactly, the question is at what point does a person exist as a person?  After they exist, killing them is obviously murder, I agree.  Catholicism isn't the only religion to have a position on this, sorry.  Libertarianism only enters into it for me because it's a grey area for me when a person exists as a person, so I'm somewhat willing to tolerate other people having a different idea than me on it, especially since obviously large numbers of people think abortion is ok, I find it hard to just dismiss them as amoral murderous savages.

It's a bit like those religious groups that are opposed to blood transfusions.  On the one hand, I disagree that they will be eternally damned for having a blood transfusion, and so when they refuse to save their daughter's life by letting her have a transfusion, I know they're killing her for no good reason.  But (a) I live in a country where people are supposed to have freedom of religion, so I feel I should let them do what they think they must, and (b) maybe if I was in their shoes I'd choose death over believing I was eternally damned.  

It's a tough call, that's all I'm saying.

However, it an "unborn human" the same as a "potential human"?

The official opinion of the church has been, yes, they are the same.

I'm sure that the first sentence here is sensical, and the second is relevant, but I'm missing exactly how at this moment. Please help.

Is this a debate about states rights, or human rights?

It's just making sure that we are accurately stating the effect of the end of Roe.

My only disagreements/uncertainties have come as to whether exceptions to a ban on abortion should include rape or incest.  I'm in favor of those exceptions - in the case of rape, it's quite obvious - the action that led to the pregnancy was carried out without the consent of the woman.  With incest, it's arguably the same situation (albeit usually involving statutory rape).

The question, then, is whether unborn humans are humans, and this is one that doesn't require Catholicism (or even any religion) to answer.

If that is the question, the question needs clarity. Religion does play a role if there is a distinction between "unborn" humans and "potential" humans, since Catholicism has said that potential humans deserve the same respect as unborn humans.

Libertarianism only enters into it for me because it's a grey area for me when a person exists as a person, so I'm somewhat willing to tolerate other people having a different idea than me on it, especially since obviously large numbers of people think abortion is ok

I appreciate your sincerity here, despite how wrongheaded it really is. This really has nothing to do with blood transfusions, or worship habits, or any other thing. It's about whether all human life is deserving of protection from the government. If a religious sect believed that, according to their religion, humans could be killed up to the point that they reached the age of 2 years old, you woldn't feel so solicitous of the free practice of their religion. Thus, the question is not one of religious freedom, it is whether the government will allow the killing of some humans because they are insufficiently developed. I frankly don't see that it's a very difficult question at all.

Religion does play a role if there is a distinction between "unborn" humans and "potential" humans, since Catholicism has said that potential humans deserve the same respect as unborn humans.

I'm not a flipping Catholic. Neither are the millions of Evangelicals that live in the south who oppose abortion. Neither are these guys. The position of the Catholic church on this is 100% irrelevant to the public policy debate at hand.

While I favor very strict penalties for rapists (we did ourselves a disservice by eliminating the death penalty for it), the circumstances that led to the creation of a human life do not bear upon the question of whether the government should allow the human life to be killed.

a lot of very simple decisions are made tough by our efforts to do what we wish to do despite our knowledge of what is right.

The issue, at least for those who aren't disiciples of Peter Singer, isn't "person" the issue is "human."

See, I'm the exact opposite on that point.  If it's not a person, then the mom should control her own body, that's pretty obvious.  If it IS a person, then it shouldn't have rights only because it wasn't conceived out of rape or incest.  

A rule where women can have an abortion in the case of rape but not in the case of concentual sex just looks crazily vindictive against the mother and shockingly disrespectful of the life of the unborn.

semantics, I simply shedding light on the fact that there is not sufficient support for a ban on aborition. Most people, IMO, interpret RvW as such.

only 20% support a "no circumstances" ban on abortion according to the poll.

This is not a favorite subject of mine. But I do believe in somewhat limited legal abortion...as a majority of people do to varying degrees.

Abortion is murder. Will the left ever whine loudly about 1.2 million murders here a year?

No, but they'ell count from zero to 2400 and beyond one by one like it's killing them concerning Iraq.

 Hey lefties, guess what ?

 If you had been aborted, you wouldn't be here !

 Do you somehow think babies or adults like you have a death wish ?

 ( The left must be insane, there really is no other explanation. )

The position of the Catholic church on this is 100% irrelevant to the public policy debate at hand.

I agree that religion should not dictate public policy, however, as we've seen from the gay marriage debate as well as the abortion debate, if a person's belief's stem from their religion, then the posistion of their respective church is relevant to the public policy debate. These people make it relevant when its used as the basis for their choices.  

and the majority, support repealing Roe.

I can't see how one can logically differentiate the circumstances of the "unborn" human coming about in justifing a pro-life/pro-choice mindset.

Yes, I totally understand what you're saying.  It is totally clear that once someone exists as a human being, their life is sacred and must be protected.  Does that happen at conception is the question that is dividing everyone.

What difference does it make what people use as the basis for their decisions?

Who cares if someones position on an issue is based on whether they are Catholic or Hindu?

In saying that the federal government should not have is power to decide, aren't we fooling ourselves into believing that the issue of abortion will be resolved with the abolishment of Roe vs. Wade?

Of course, using Roe as an indication of abortion support or opposition is somewhat screwy to begin with anyway.  Heck, I'm a lawyer, I've read the whole thing, studied it and its progeny in class (which is not to say I'm an expert) and there is enough shadow in the law to create doubt and confusion.

The real question is under what circumstances are people willing to allow legal abortion.  Life of the mother?  Rape?  Incest?  Because the fetus has serious genetic diseases?  Within the first 3 months only?  Within the first two?  Viability?  Pharmaceutical only, not surgical?  Convenience?  That's the real issue - Roe is failing, if for no other reason than the justices tied their ruling in many ways to medical technology that is making a hash of legal terminology.

The people who will eventually replace current abortion law with a new standard, if the standard is going to be replaced politically, are the ones who favor abortion with restrictions, not either of the two advocacy groups.  If Roe fails, I would presume the question would be sent back to the states, where we would have quite a few different standards depending on the makeup of the legislatures and the individual court systems.  I cannot believe too many states would take the Dakota position, at least not in the long run, and I would suspect that the max anti-abortion position would also face court challenges in state judiciaries.

If the basis of a person's decision is dictated by the group they belong to, and that group has formed an opinion that it's members must follow, than that group's opinion is relevent.

To say that it's relevent does not mean it's right/wrong.

You do know that there are liberals who are pro-life, and conservatives who are pro-choice right?

It's this party-line/ideology-line mindset that stifles productive debate.

But at the same time, I think it is wrong to tell a woman she must pay a price for the rapist's/abuser's misdeed.  Yes, encourage adoption or other alternatives... but prohibiting her from terminating the pregnancy in those circumstances is equally wrong, I think.

For me, it is one thing if the woman willingly assumed the known risk of becoming pregnant as the result of having sex (a one-night stand, prostitution, etc.).  It is a completely different thing if the woman was raped/abused, and was forced to assume the risk.

In the former case, she knew that sex could lead to pregnancy - and had sex anyhow.  In the latter case, she had no choice about having sex, and therefore should not be held responsible for the consequences.

You are going in circles here.

You are claiming that the position of the Catholic church needs to be factored into the abortion debate.

Yes, I suppose in the sense that the opinions of those who favor abortion ,and of those who oppose abortion, are by definition factors in the abortion debate. But that is not really a point that comes as news to anybody, does it?

...that if I'm a Catholic and I oppose abortion, I must be a sheep blindly following the pope and not have come to that conclusion on my own like all the good non-Catholics??

I sure hope I read that wrong.

who indicated they believe the abortion issue will be resolved w. abolition of Roe v Wade?

Not sure who you are agreeing with, since nobody said this. But there is no reason why religion should not dictate, or at least influence, public policy. It happens all the time.

That's inconsequential if we're looking at it simply considering the idea of perserving life.

Either life should be preserved at all costs, or there are situations in which life can(or should) be destroyed. I think the first mindset is that of someone pro-life, and the latter is someone that is pro-choice.

Those that say that they are "pro-life, but" are simply a subsect of the pro-choice population.

For that reason, I think that Roe v Wade, while possibly being ammended, will never be abolish(or the ideas around Roe v Wade at least)

...cannot be resolved until Roe vs. Wade is abolished.  The entire controversy over it is an indication that the Supreme Court over-reached by imposing a decision upon a controversy best left suited for the legislatures.

My stance on abortion is well to the left of many Contributors here, let alone readers - but even setting aside the moral issues RvW isn't worth the damage that it's doing to our political system.

But that's only the first part of the equation. What Roe gets replaced with is then the real crux of the matter.

Like I said, 67% disapproval of Bush doesn't mean 67% of a Dem opponent. Excuse the analogy but you see what I mean.

If a person favors abortion on the basis of a moral value system informed by their aetheism, is that "relevant"?  Should we point out, loudly and often, that the godless are more likely to support treating the unborn as not living members of the human family?

I'm not saying that it should be factored. I'm saying that it's not 100% irrelevent. It is relevent because that opinion is demostrated in its follower's ideas of public policy.

It seems as obvious to me as it seems to you.

...I don't understand your point.

My party is opposed to decriminalizing drugs but I'm all for it!

How was my party's position relevant to mine?

I see it as a libertarian issue not because I think that the baby does not deserve some protections, I do.

I see it as a libertarian issue because I do not believe that the power of The State should extend that far.

I am saying, however, that you can't be Catholic and be any level of "pro-choice".

Do you agree?

There's a difference to subscribing to a group that most closely follows your beliefs, and belonging to a group that is your beliefs. To use your analogy, if your party's membership required you to oppose the legalization of drugs, that you aren't legimitately a member of that party.

The tradition of The Holy Catholic Church has a lot of room for Matters of Conscience.

In saying The position of the Catholic church on this is 100% irrelevant to the public policy debate at hand. , I understood Leon to be saying that if the position Catholic Church was 100% relevant to the debate, it would be dictating public policy.

I'm arguing that very point. Religion influences public policy, and thus it is relevent to public policy.

...belief that being pro-life is a requirement for becoming a Catholic?

If not, why are you trying to tell Catholics what they should think?

If so, what is your position, as a Catholic?

Really, if you have arguments to make in favor of some position, I encourage you to make them. But you are starting to look like a troll here.

To compare Athiesm to Catholicsm(or any organized religion) is faulty. You can assign a belief to a group solely because they disagree with the belief of another group. You can't make a positive out of a negative.(A positive belief in one thing from the negative belief in another)

religious bigotry you've got going here in this thread. Just wanted to let you know.  

If you want, we can say "good Catholic". If a member of the Catholic Church does not agree with one of it's most established principles, the preservation of life, how can that person be considered a good Catholic?

I understood Leon to be saying that if the position Catholic Church was 100% relevant to the debate, it would be dictating public policy.

Then you need to ascend to the mountaintop and seek enlightenment, because your conclusion does not follow from your proposition.

don't think the power of the state extends to protecting innocent life then I'd rather not be around them.

it's just that abortion is not a matter of conscience any more than the Trinity or Papal Infallibility are matters of conscience.

I have to request that you stick to making your own argumnets, if you have any, and skip attempting to tell others what they must think.

And I say this with the utmost respect for everyone's passionately-held views on this subject:

RedState needs to create a spinoff blog that strictly deals with abortion and right-to-life issues.  The comments in every single abortion thread I've ever witnessed on RedState are the ultimate example of what the title of this front-page post purports to show isn't true.  

Every time the abortion debate comes up, it's a guaranteed 100+ post battle royale and the other important issues of the day get neglected because everyone gets their knickers in a twist and devotes all their energy to that single blog entry.  It's much more important, in my mind, to talk about some of the other important diary entries and front page stories here on RedState than to start another Holy War on the front page over abortion.  

I hope the directors will think about my suggestion and spin off another blog where people can discuss abortion.  I never participate in these debates because I know that they are ultimately a tremendous waste of time here at a Conservative blog surrounded by a society that's at least 50/50 on abortion.  Enough.

End of rant, my $0.02, YMMV, yadda yadda.

Are you serious?

To say that I am trying to tell Catholics how to think is a base misunderstanding of my point.

My point is that there are certain expectations that organizations expect of it's members. Some of these expectations are preferences, and some of them are requirements. If it is the requirement of an organization, and a person does not follow that requirement, that a person is not a legitimate member of that organization. If that requirement is an issue of public policy, that's organization position is relevent due the action of its members.

I choose Catholicism only because it was being discussed. I can change to Buddism if it's help flesh out the point.

Listen, it's not an attack.

Allows you (and others) to pass judgement on who will live and die. No matter your belief system, that is not justifiable.

I'm not sure you are familiar with the tenants of the Catholic Religion. Since that seems to be the case, maybe we should use a religion that you are more familiar with? The basic principles still hold.

Should a woman who aborts her child be forced to pay a fine?

Should a woman who aborts her child be forced to go to jail for a week? A year? 10 years? Life?

Should a woman who aborts her child be eligible for the death penalty?

How would the innocent life be protected? If you hear that a 2 month pregnant girl had talked to a doctor about getting an abortion, would you imprison her until the baby was born? How else could you ensure that the child's life was protected?

The question isn't whether Libertarians "don't think the power of the state extends to protecting innocent life" but that they don't think that the power of the state extends to arresting girls who are two months pregnant to protect the lives of the children in their belly.

That was the answer I was looking for.

You're talking a matter of degrees!The roe discussion takes religion off the table if one so wishes because it's bad law period. It takes the issue were it's supposed to be - voted on by the people at the state or local level.

i apologize for having a little fun with you but I'm little board and you were right there

I choose Catholicism only because it was being discussed.

You are the one who injected Catholicism into the discussion on abortion, for reasons which you seem unable to explain.

How about you drop Catholicism as a topic and just give your opinions on abortion.

It depends on if one feels that, in enacting Roe V Wade, the Fed government is protecting the rights of a woman since the States are unwilling or unable to do so. The civil rights ammendments to the constitution occured because at least one state was did not feel that those rights should apply to everyone. The question is if we, as a country, should allow one state to treat its citizens unjustly.

you are either in favor of protecting innocent life or not. Pretty black and white.

Your what-if scenarios might be amusing to you but are hardly difficult to answer.

If I don't know you and I walk up and tell you I am going to kill you, what happens? And if I do kill you, what happens?

See how easy that was?

So when do libertarians think the state has an interest in the life of the unborn?

This is the fallacy of pro-choicers and aetheists alike.  Is, or is not, an unborn child a human being worthy of respect for its life?  You can not fail to answer that question - any more than pre-1865 Americans could duck the question as applied to black people - nor is it humanly possible to answer it without some frame of reference for what is and is not an attribute of life, and what respect one accords to life.  Those questions are fundamental - you can use the tools of science (which, BTW, have changed dramatically since that 1973 treatise by Nobel Prize-winning biologist Harry Blackmun) to approach the questions, but at the end of the day you can't answer them without reference to the very foundations of your moral and philosophical view of humanity and life.  And if the foundations are based on a belief in no God, that has one set of implications; if the foundations are based on a belief in God, it has another.  But you can't argue that the one foundation is relevant but the other is not.  It's like saying it's relevant to someone's political bias that they are a Republican but not that they are not a Republican.

If abortion is murder, and murder violates the rights of the citizens, as a country, would you allow for the rights of the citizens to be voided if only occurs in just one state?

this is it.

Unless you can tie your exegesis on Catholic docrine to Leon's story, which is pretty doubtful, knock it off.

I was once an Ayn Rand quoting, party-line Libertarian, and I still lean that way. I believed then and now that government exists to defend Liberty, its necessary condition Life, and its only proof in the Pursuit of Happiness.

I thought at one time that abortion was about choice, and choice meant Liberty, which was good, and so I was Pro-choice.

Then one day I heard a speech by Alan Keyes, conservative Presidential candidate.  I can't do him justice here, but he confronted me with the amount of work it takes to say that life begins at birth. It obviously does not.  What then of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" can be afforded to one who is deprived of all three by someone else's hand?

We are only as noble as our defense of the innocent.

looking at the substance of many of the posts and how quickly the posts accumulate on a thread like this, it's very clear that what's driving this activity is not a discussion of nuance or misunderstanding of Roe v Wade. It's a desire to see abortion banned. Just read.

This is a thread of abortion. You seem intent on hijacking it in order to discuss something else, although you seem to have a difficult time saying what that something else is.

Do you have anything, anything at all, to say on the actual topic at hand?

If you are saying that the state has the right to "protect innocent life", I am asking you exactly what that entails with regards to protecting an infant still within the womb of the mother?

Does "protect innocent life" only mean "we'll punish you after you kill someone"?

If this doesn't make the original title of the post apropos!

The trouble is that abortion is a wedge issue with us conservatives.  I'm not personally comfortable with it, but I'm not sure enough (I'm not catholic) to overcome my natural libertarian nature and say it should be banned.

That was the first post in this thread(emphasis added)

Then Leon went on to say that Catholicism has nothing to do with this.

And so it progressed.

I am pro-choice. I feel that women should have the right to an abort potential humans. I feel that every woman in the United States should have this right, and since if the States won't protect this right, the Federal Goverment should.

on whether abortion is a civil right.

You clearly think it ought to be. There is a well established process for altering the US constitution, and I suggest you follow it if you want abortion to be a constitutional right in this country.

But at present, it is not a civil right.

I choose Catholicism only because it was being discussed.

It's called threadjacking. Making the issue about religion when no one brought religion up in the original post. That's what Leon was getting at responding to the first poster who brought up Catholicism.

Listen, it's not an attack.

No, you just look like an idiot.

See it as analagous to views on prohibition. It's not that I think that people OUGHT to have abortions. Of course, they ought to not! They ought to only have sex when they are in a lifelong-term relationship with someone with whom they have pair-bonded and with whom they are willing to raise children (yes, even if their contraception fails... if you want something foolproof, get 'em snipped, insurance covers it).

Given that how I think the world ought to be ain't gonna happen, I'm stuck with balancing what ought with what's attainable.

the strawman.

Society has dealt with the issues for millenia. There is nothing new or unique in those topics you brought up.

There are laws against threatening to kill people. There are laws against killing people. Nothing new here.

I am saying that I would be satisfied if a unborn child had the same protections we afford born children.

because flogging Catholicism is your personal bloggyhorse.

Leon saying he is not Catholic closed any reasonable discussion on the issue.

This is the last warning. Knock off this treadjack.

But asking:

Let's say you hear a rumor that so-and-so is pregnant and is thinking about aborting the child.

What do you feel the state is entitled to do in response to this in order to protect innocent life?

After wasting a good deal of everyones time, you finally get down to making your own case.

Your opinion of the Catholic church has no bearing on this discussion.

I feel that women should have the right to an abort potential humans.

Like all Americans, you are entitled to your views, and are entitled to attempt to have them enacted in law. I encourage you to begin the process neccessary to have the right to an abortion written into the Constitution.

The trend that Leon is refering to is a result of the religous movement that is occuring here in America. Thus, religion is relevent to the debate of Roe V Wade.

not the same at all.

Immigration brings up the same divisions, I think, and for the same reasons. It goes to the split in the GOP between libertarians and conservatives.

the minute i was "conceived" my DNA was set.  it didn't change as i developed and it hasn't changed to this day.  surely there is a religious question of when the "soul" is imparted and all that - which is what you are driving at here.  worthy discussion.

but from a purely scientific standpoint, it seems to me that the unique DNA of the living human embryo is enough to say it's a seperate human life.  It is merely at a very early stage of development.  it's not monkey dna or half-formed dna or merely a ball of cells devoid of genetic identity.  the human embryo at the moment of conception is a genetically unique human being.

if that's the case, i don't care what creed you profess or what your political persuastion, it should follow that this genetically unique, though relatively young human being deserves our protection.

historically and, as Leon and most other posters here are not Catholic, wrong theologically.

I was under the impression that Pope Paul VI's "Humanae Vitae" still stood.

...would be yes for the reason that people aren't assigned states to live in by the federal government. There are also laws and rules that differ from state to state that infringe on liberty and the pursuit of happiness

It's not that I think that people OUGHT to have abortions.

Is your position that because other people believe abortion is their right, you cannot be against it?  Or is it simply a fight you cannot win, so you will expend your energy elsewhere?

I'm not an anti-abortion zealot, as there are other issues of great importance to discuss where, like you, I think progress can be more fruitful.  But when the issue comes up I refuse to be cowed into moderation, other than by putting my arguments into language best suited to convey my meaning.

but if you are lumping abortion and contraception together as the same issue you don't understand the encyclical or the catechism.

They aren't treated as similar issues in either.

Obviosly, my interpretation of the comments section was wrong. From reading this site, I thought that the comments were a vehicle of debate. As debates grow and ideas are expressed, it morphs. Apparently, that morphing is frowned upon. I understand that threads need to stay relevent, but I don't understand how it can be said that the influences of a person's opinion of abortion is not relevent to a discussion on a poll about abortion when polls themselves are the quantification of those very opinions.

Is there a place available where abortion, and all it's aspects, can be discussed?

Friend, if you see a "division within GOP on abortion," I can't find it.  At the grassroots level, i.e., down at BC-'04 HQ, the foot soldiers are 100% anti.  Aside from Snarlin' Arlen, where do you see this alleged "pro-choice wing of the GOP" manifesting itself?  Or the libertarian wing, if you prefer?  Do you perceive that being pro-choice within the GOP is a growth industry?

Then what should be the responsiblity of the federal government?

You've led me to formulate a new policy. First person to use the word "Catholic" in response to one of my posts (unless I use the same word in the post) gets axed. You're not discussing an aspect of abortion, neither are you discussing anything related to the shift in attitudes about abortion (since the Catholic church has been opposed to abortion since well before 1973), what you're doing is Catholic-baiting. We've seen it enough to know.

to be increasingly pro-life... anti-abortion.  Perhaps this is where the trend is closing the gap, as "thinking" youth begin to replace their drug damaged, free-love-for-all hippi parents in society.

In any case, the issue can never be pointless, and I for one will continue talking about it, and writing about it until there is not a single sane doctor in America, who would even consider the voluntary dismemberment of a human child, no matter what stage of development he or she has attained.

(:>|)

*

I AM against it.

However, I do not feel that I have the right to prevent them from having one. Since I do not have the right to prevent a woman from having an abortion, I am pretty sure that you don't have the right to prevent it either.

If we don't have the right to prevent it, I'm pretty sure that, by extension, The State doesn't.

It's not that I think that abortion is a woman's right. It's that I know that my rights are not so broad as to prevent a woman from receiving one.

I'm just saying "The tradition of The Holy Catholic Church has a lot of room for Matters of Conscience."

Do not touch it again until reading ALL of Leons comments!

Nothing.

Before Roe the fed had zero responsibility and 70% of people lived in states where abortion was legal.

btw - I believe that % will be a lot lower if Roe is overturned now.

Doctors have tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt, generally. Plus, they tend to involve themselves in very high-rent lifestyles. You pass a law that says any doctor who gives an abortion loses his medical license, and any doctor who performs medicine without a license is subject to a heavy fine, and that's pretty well sufficient.

States rights also seems to be a popular topic on in these comments, yet this neither was mentioned in the original post. I'm unsure where this artificial line of threadjacking occurs.

As a small L Libertarian, and an athiest, I have no problem telling you that abortion is murder.  And there is no justification to not have a ban on abortion past 3 months, except to save the life of the mother (which the chances of that happening and the need of an abortion are so slim it is pretty much theoretical)

See us debate immigration, or the price of oil, or the state of the Alliance, or the tactics in the war on terror, or the upcoming political contests more than I would like to see us debate abortion.  

On immigration, for example, we have a problem that's quantifiable and amenable to solution:  people differ on how many illegals should be admitted on a continuum from -12 million to a guest worker program that will let in more, but at least there's a boundary.  We disagree on things like how much money it will cost to deport illegals, how much it will cost our companies, and we can argue over the divisions in the republican party and cultural conservatives (both of whom have points with some merit) but I think even immigration is a less complex topic, and a less religious topic, than abortion.

If you want to put it in completely abstract terms, I've read over almost every abortion thread on RedState since I started posting here -- and the arguments pro-con get repeated over, and over, and over again.  Each time with the same vehemence, almost as though this was the first time the issue was being discussed.  I have a feeling that will continue.

Personally, I'm pro-life, and I changed my outlook after having been pro-choice for years.  But I'm not going to give all of my reasons why and explain them here, in this space, on this blog, at least.  I'll talk about them elsewhere, but not to the detriment of other important topics.  

That's just my take on this.  I'm not trying to disparage anyone who has a real passion for this issue, but my suggestion is that given the level of argument that ensues inevitably when this subject is discussed, RedState might want to start a new venture devoted strictly to pro-life issues.  I certainly wouldn't object to that, and I'd be happy to discuss my change of mind on that blog.  

I understand. There are some things that simply shouldn't be said. Fair enough.