Replies

I would venture to say its the latter and not the former or there would not be large disagreement on issues. My original point was not to argue about the first trimester label to point out the arrogance that one has to have to assume they are correct in all matter.

I did not say I was correct in all matters. I am human, ergo fallible. What I said is that most things are stark in contrast... black and white. There is right, there is wrong, and most folks know the difference.

It's certainly amazing that you cannot see the difference between someone who is pro-life yet supports the morning after pill and someone who supports abortion on demand.

I can't see where you find a difference between murder in hours vs. murder in months. Is it somehow less of a crime to murder a 2 yr old child than it is to murder a 6 yr old child? What is the difference in life between an hour, a month, a year, a decade, or a century? it is still the intentional murder of a human being.

If your criteria is that a life is lost then by that logic you have to agree that someone who is negligent, runs a stop sign and kills someone is just as evil as someone who kills another in cold blood so long as the only criteria is that a life is lost.

The difference is between life lost and life taken. The life taken by the driver you mention is taken unintentionally. It is not murder to do so, but rather an awful accidental death. The life is lost through no fault, or at least without intent. The life taken from the womb is intentionally taken and is certainly murder.

There is a large amount of disagreement on the pro-life side about abortion, even if the general agreement is that abortion is wrong . Abortion in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother is one.

While there is disagreement, as I have said elsewhere, I doubt it to be large- Or at least not by the numbers. The vast quantity of abortions are performed as a convenience and I doubt that rape, incest, and life of the mother are statistically significant. Few people I know would turn down an outlawing of abortion because of an exception for the above.

Those that would object would mainly do so because rape and life of the mother can be stretched beyond the common meaning to include just about anything.

The morning after pill is another.

I don't know a single soul who is pro-life who endorses the morning after pill. Most folks I know were dead set against it being legalized and still are.

Even the use of contraceptives is an area of disagreement as shown by your statement. Where do these fall in your black and white view?

I am against birth control because it doesn't seem to work.

I know you've already admitted "gray" in the rape/incest view

I did not. I gave it to you for the purpose of the argument. My opinion runs firmly toward life in all things. It isn't the child's fault he was conceived of incest or rape, It is the fault of the rapist. If any life should be taken it is his.

What I said is that most things are stark in contrast... black and white. There is right, there is wrong, and most folks know the difference.

While yes, most people know the difference between right and wrong where do you draw the line between what's right and wrong. You could ask 50 people and get huge disagreement on where the line is drawn on even the abortion issue. That's where "gray" comes in. Another example; stealing is wrong, but what about stealing to feed a family? If that's "white", exactly where does the line get drawn?

Few people I know would turn down an outlawing of abortion because of an exception for the above.

If you're referring to a law that would outlaw abortion and allow no exception there are many that would oppose it, including myself. This is because yes, rape/incest and life of mother issues are extremely rare, but it would take only one case where someone in that situation died because of an illegal abortion to cause a public outcry against the law leading to more harm than good being done to the pro-life movement. When your goal is to see abortions reduced you have to look at all the implications of your action in order to take the best possible goal.

I don't know a single soul who is pro-life who endorses the morning after pill.

Count me as one that is uncommitted on this issue and yet is against abortion. That is only because of the fact that you have to look at the overall costs/benefits to society for such an action. Is society better off by it or not? For abortion as a whole I would say society is worse off by far. But with just the morning after pill? I'm not as sure.