Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abortion Ban Will Never Happen; Pro-Life Movement Needs New Plan
North Star Writers Group ^ | October 8, 2007 | Dan Calabrese

Posted on 10/08/2007 7:29:07 AM PDT by Dukes Travels

It’s time for the fight against abortion to move to a new front. An honest look at the landscape suggests that the longtime goal of the pro-life movement – the banning of abortion – is never going to be achieved.

We need to try something else.

I believe a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under the law from being killed. But if the goal is to save the lives of unborn children – and it should be – we need to look at our primary line of attack and see what it has achieved, and what it is likely to achieve in the future.

(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; dobson; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-174 next last
To: ontap
The fact of the matter is we have to a lot more people on our side. It is always going to be a numbers thing, always.

And what kind of numbers do you suppose we need to guarantee an end to abortion?

121 posted on 10/08/2007 1:20:01 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

Cliches aside it is still a numbers game. No court, no win.


122 posted on 10/08/2007 1:20:35 PM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

You have to get enough Justices who are in favor of overturning Wade. It was passed with a 7-2 majority from the Burger court. I don’t know if we have enough votes or not but we are a lot closer than we were. We have to get a Republican elected this time. Hillary will set it back twenty years.


123 posted on 10/08/2007 1:26:36 PM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: ontap

That wasn’t my question, and I think you know it.


124 posted on 10/08/2007 1:33:21 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: avacado

I believe a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under the law from being killed.
***I do too. That fetus deserves protection extended by the state.

I do wonder if it is biblical to extend “full” protection to a fetus? I.e. when a man hurts a pregnant woman, he’s expected to pay an eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth. But if the unborn baby is killed, the price is not the same.

Perhaps it is time to consider a 3 (or even 4) tiered system of protection.

Tier 1: Living, viable, late term baby which will not be aborted unless the life of the mother is at stake.

Tier 2: Living, not-yet-viable pre-born human who should have the right to protection and life and a safe womb to which it can attain viability. Cannot be aborted unless there is an open rape case associated with the pregnancy or the life of the mother is at stake.

Tier 3: Living, early stage, not yet viable pre-born human for whom we do not extend the rights of life in this society because of a historical snag where we once considered such tissue not to be a baby. We as a society thought it was best to consider it a private decision. I personally do not believe in Tier3 abortions, but I can understand that there are many who think it is a “right to choose” at this stage. It may be time to consider a program where the woman declares her pregnancy and intent to abort. Our societal function at this point would be to provide a family that is willing to adopt this baby and to put up this woman for 6-8 months in a safe environment so the baby can grow and maybe the woman can learn some life skills. If our society cannot muster the forces necessary to save this baby, the woman has the sickening “right” to abort this pregnancy. Time for us to put up or shut up.

With a 3-tiered plan in place, women would stop using abortion as a means of birth control. Millions of lives would be saved. We would extend the right to life to every human that we have resources to save. Unfortunately, if we cannot put up the resources to save the Tier3 babies, we still would have this horrible practice staining our nation’s soul.


125 posted on 10/08/2007 1:43:20 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

I haven’t quite thought my way through how your proposal would fit in, but the harnessing of such social forces might save lives. Have a look at my 3-tiered proposal.


126 posted on 10/08/2007 2:25:48 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Honestly, I believe it’s too complicated to gain wide support. Every tier is another possibility for the whole to fail to get the required support.


127 posted on 10/08/2007 2:33:49 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

You’re probably right.


128 posted on 10/08/2007 2:56:23 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Oh, I could certainly agree. But the same group of assholes who crafted Roe v Wade would have the say on constitutional legislation.

They could easily go the other way and have plenty of applause from certain groups. They would have to be willing to destroy the system that comes from Roe by ruling "person" definition constitutional, and I don't think they are willing to do that.

129 posted on 10/08/2007 3:00:15 PM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: francesco525
It's YOUR thinking that has Arnold Schwarzenegger and Michael Bloomberg implementing all sorts of liberal evils that can't be reserved with the votes of conservatives. And, when a liberal Republican is pushing leftist legislation, there IS NO stopping it.

It was George W. Bush that implemented more big-government socialism than Bill Clinton could ever have hoped to implement, including the Medicare prescription drug plan that will cost future generations billions of dollars.

Liberal Republicans DO FAR MORE damage than liberal Democrats because Republicans will not stop leftist legislation pushed for by such a Republican.

I'm not asking for perfect. I AM ASKING FOR A CONSERVATIVE. Fred Thompson would do. Giuliani is NOT a conservative. He is a liberal. Anyone not realizing that is grossly ignorant of his record.

The country is damaged when liberals reach office, even more so when liberal Republicans reach office with the votes of conservatives.

130 posted on 10/08/2007 4:33:08 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Dan Calabrese
I’m trying to urge the pro-life movement to focus its efforts in a direction by which it can save a lot more babies than it is saving - or ever will have any hopes of saving - by trying to do it through politics.

The best way to save the lives if the unborn is to overturn Roe. Presuming, we're only one vote away on the Supreme Court from doing so, the most important objective for pro-lifers would be elect a pro-life President dedicated to getting justices on the court to overturn Roe.

Another objective should be to stop Rudolph Giuliani from turning the Republican party into a pro-abortion party. If that happens, any attempt to reduce abortion at the Federal level and through the courts will be eliminated.

And, I don't think any pro-lifer opposes means other than political ones to reduce abortion. But, that doesn't mean pro-lifers should give up the political and legislative fight, which has been used to save the lives of the unborn.

131 posted on 10/08/2007 4:41:58 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
Electing Presidents that will nominate pro-life judges is the only way to fight this battle.

That is the very route that has failed.

Disagree. With this President we got two of the three Justices we need.

132 posted on 10/08/2007 4:46:55 PM PDT by colorado tanker (I'm unmoderated - just ask Bill O'Reilly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

When I read things like what you just wrote, I want to cry at the complete naivity of what a Clinton presidency will yield. I guess if you believe abortion is the number one issue of our day, than I guess I can maybe understand...but I don’t understand, with everything that’s going on in this world, how you can think that.


133 posted on 10/08/2007 5:06:53 PM PDT by Hildy ("man's reach exceeds his grasp"? It's a lie: man's grasp exceeds his nerve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Disagree. With this President we got two of the three Justices we need.

And the only reason we got them is because it ISN'T the three we need, but they sure laid the groundwork for refusing to confirm anyone that won't make a blanket promise not to touch Roe.

It's just another variation on the Rockefeller memo scam: "Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct..." then "launch an independent [fill in the blank] when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate ...."

They went along with the Supreme Court legislating from the bench when abortion was really considered bad, you think they are going to blanche at taking a dump on the Constitution again to keep it?

134 posted on 10/08/2007 5:44:19 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: murron
The “hearts and minds” argument won’t wash.

The only other option is a dictatorship.

135 posted on 10/08/2007 5:46:36 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

I is what I perceived to be your question when you asked how many numbers it would take. The number of like minded justices is the only number that counts. And I think YOU know that.


136 posted on 10/09/2007 5:22:57 AM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: ontap
The number of like minded justices is the only number that counts. And I think YOU know that.

Not at all.

The number of justices presupposes electing a president who will nominate them, and enough of a willing majority in the Senate to confirm.

So I ask again, what's the bullet-proof number we have to elect to strike down Roe by your plan?

Surely you recognize that number MUST be our requirement if we are to achieve an end to abortion by the only method you seem to approve.

137 posted on 10/09/2007 5:40:36 AM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
The only way we'll get that third Justice is to have both the White House and Senate again. Had the Senate been majority Dem 2004-2006 we never would have gotten Alito and maybe not Roberts.

We kept telling the "teach 'em a lesson" crowd there are consequences to losing elections and one of them is we won't get the third Justice this term. You're right, a Dem Senate will never confirm a Roberts/Alito type nominee.

138 posted on 10/09/2007 9:12:53 AM PDT by colorado tanker (I'm unmoderated - just ask Bill O'Reilly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Oh, I'm all for "teach 'em a lesson."

I just advocate a plan that would take a bite out of the "harmless" recreational sex that feeds babies to the abortion industry RIGHT NOW, rather than wait for a pie in the sky majority that will never happen.

139 posted on 10/09/2007 9:56:52 AM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
You and I disagree on abortion but, as one who believes that 50+ million innocents have been wantonly slaughtered under Roe vs. Wade, how am I supposed to prioritize issues? I would like to think that, if you agreed with my premises, you would agree with my conclusions. Part of the problem is that some who are "pro-choice" cannot bring themselves to believe that pro-lifers are serious, informed, principled and absolutely dedicated to that cause. Hillary would be a disaster to the pro-life cause and to many other causes as well. The nomination of a pro-abortion Republican would end the GOP status as the pro-life party and make the pro-life issue a transitory issue rather than a permanent principle.

If the pro-life issue is paramount, then, by definition, all other issues are secondary. Those other issues can still be very important but they are not paramount to pro-lifers. I personally would defend gun rights nearly as militantly as I would pursue pro-life. I feel very strongly in favor of a militantly interventionist foreign policy with all the bells and whistles. I don't like taxes any more than any other conservative does. I admit that I am less fiscally conservative than many and less than I used to be. Whatever your most important issues may be, the probability is that most pro-lifers agree with you but not so much as to abandon the babies.

Even more than the tragic election of Jimmuh Cahtuh against His Accidency and Nixon's Legacy Feckless Ford, the last GOP pro-abort candidate, the election of Mrs. Arkansas Antichrist would galvanize conservatives and cause the formation of a genuine conservative movement in this country for the first time in nearly thirty years. It would be a disciplined movement and not just a hodgepodge of issues that make people feel good. There would be blood in the gutters, first within the movement as it unifies, and then against the Demonrats. So be it if the alternative is a restoration of social issue liberalism as a GOP norm.

140 posted on 10/09/2007 11:56:51 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-174 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson