If you examine my remarks, you will see that I neither argued for nor against abortion. My point was that the author of the article does the pro-life movement a disservice by trying to represent it. You are obviously too emotionally involved in the topic to carry on a rational conversation.
I'm on my Treo, so my usual Google, copy and paste skillsa are limited. This is from my memory, but perhaps someone else can fill in the links:
Remember the woman reporter in Texas a few years ago who turned in her boyfriend's urine to an abortionist, and was told that she was pregnant and he abortion was scheduled?
The woman who ran that clinic has since written a book telling all about the intentional misleading rampant within the abortion industry (dispensing the least effective birthcontrol pills with little counseling, knowing the girl would likely be back for her abortion when the pill failed).
Follow the money.
And realize that abortionists are capable of the worst you can imagine
You want calm in the face of a holocaust, reason in the face of insane inhumane slaughter. I'd say that reveals a lot about you and your perspective. Are you so dead spiritually that you have not the ability to be outraged at the evil slaughter of innocent alive sensing children purposely pulled from the protection and life support of the placenta each built for their earliest ages of their inidividual lifetime? Take your calm and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine ... I'm not the least bit interested in your brand of reason, in your dissembled serving of rational. Readers can easily see your 'reason' is aimed at an agenda laden rationale which sustains the current kill process.
Perhaps you are so dense that you do not comprehend the service you offer to the holocaust of infant slaughter. I don't intend to give you the benefit of doubt after reading your smarmy inferences to other posters (looking like purposeful diversions, to me). I accept the moniker of zealot. I am one, where the endangered little ones are discussed.
The democrat party wants so badly for the American people to disconnect the democrat party from their service to the abortion slaughter. Where will the democrats turn when the American people awaken to the evil the democrat party has chosen to serve in order to empower their vote potential through the abortion blood of innocent alive children?
Fifteen years ago, perhaps there was room for calm deliberation of the abortion on demand blight. With the democrat party purposeful defense of partial birth infanticide (and fetal tissue harvesting for profit), the time for unemotional discussion has passed. The democrat party is now purposely supporting and defending an evil so heinous it must garner outrage in order to strip bare the rhetoric of dissembling people like you who try so hard to obfuscate the facts and divert the discussion.
Your technique of diversion is not obscure at FR. We see flourishes like yours often, with serial killing apologists sneakily addressing the emotion or 'color' of pro-life posters' comments. Jill Stanek has seen with her own eyes the evil you assert must be considered with calm, must be discussed rationally, must be addressed as if the process has some redeeming quality that you can uncover if only there were no outrage over the slaughter. That smacks of the democrat's desire to wiggle out from behind their purposeful support and defense of this holocaust which has gotten them so many fear and hate driven votes.
There is nothing reasonable about partial birth infanticide for profit and votes. There should not be calm to be found when the horrific truth about politicial manipulation of life and death is exposed. What would we Americans be if such an horrible slaughter for empowerment of politicians activates only calm discussion?
If a person wants the current slaughter to continue, calm disconnected discussion aides the status quo. If the heinous truth of this slaughterfest promoted by the democrat party garners only rational debate, the hearts behind the debate are dead to the truth of what the democrat party has so consciously promoted and defended with obfuscation, manipulation, and open lies even on the floor of the U.S. Senate!
Serial killing of alive, growing individual human beings is not something to contemplate with standoffish calm. The promoters of abortion on demand have too long succeeded in focusing America's attention upon the woman giving life support while completely disenfranchising the alive growing child because they support the unopposed killing of those disenfranchised beings. Imagine what would have been accomplished regarding the heinous practice of slavery had the nation bowed to your premise of only calm, rational, reasoned debate.
Why change a societal behavior feature if there is no outrage or disgust quotient connected to the behavior? If a behavior is benign, it begs no change or intrusion in a Constitutional Republic. As long as your ilk can divert attention from the aliveness of the little ones being slaughtered on demand, there is only a benign behavior, a supreme court granted right not found in the Constitution. BUT those beings killed at such an horrific rate are alive individuals! If a behavior is wrong, and causes the continued slaughter of 1.2 individual live fellow humans, THAT deserves outrage to this ol' boy, especially when there are sneaky apologists cruising discussion sites trying to divert and defuse the emotional discussions. It is revealing that abortion apologists cannot agree with the necessity to see the horrible truth because it bespeaks their desire for the status quo of 1.2 million serial killings per year to continue.
There is nothing "rational" about a conversation that is willfully blind to primary facts -- that is, to the wanton slaughter of innocent human lives. It is irrational to engage in discourse on such terms. For the parties would have to tacitly agree that the pre-born are neither human nor alive in order to engage in such a conversation. And while the parties might be inclined to accept this tacit bargain, the acceptance would still be at odds with the reality. Their argument would be premised on a [tacit] logical impossibility and thus would be worthless.
There is an argument here that is not based on pure emotion.