This sentence and the explanation that follows are one of the more blantant examples of pro-abortion spin that I've seen in a long time. When the three choices are 1. abortion always illegal, 2. abortion illegal under certain circumstances, and 3. abortion always legal, even many people in the anti-abortion movement choose the second option. I believe that abortion should be allowed if the pregnancy is a real and serious medical threat to the mother's life or health. I also believe that a woman who is impregnated during rape should not have to carry the baby forced on her by the rapist. However, even with these two exceptions, the laws that I would most favor would prohibit over 95% of all abortions. To say that I am "philosophically pro-choice" is wishful thinking on the part of the pro-abortion crowd.
From other polls, I've heard that Americans are split about half and half on whether abortion is acceptable. Most seem to think that it isn't a good thing no matter what but that it shouldn't be illegal. I think they haven't considered whether the unborn child is a person and whether there are any justifiable grounds for taking that person's life. If more people considered the evidence, I think they would recognize that the unborn child is a person and oppose legalized abortion in almost all cases. I can see how that point gets obscured in the name-calling on both sides, but people need to look at the issue more closely and ignore the personalities.
In either case, the guy who wrote this piece has slanted the issue horribly.
If they did this, they would make pro-choice Democrats look like extremists. Unfortunately, they instead let themselves be painted as people who would willingly see women raped and then forced to birth and raise the rapists' children (I'm not saying the Republicans really are like that, but that they get painted that way).
What Republicans need to publically acknowledge is that not everything that is wrong and abhorrent can be outlawed, and that it would be both foolish and ineffective to push for restrictions that the majority of people wouldn't support, unless or until such time as the majority of people support them. While most Republicans are well aware that there's no possibility of suddenly passing a complete ban on abortion which extends all the way to cover certain contraceptives, there are a significant number of people who vote Democrat out of fear that the Republicans would do precisely that.
I, too, was one of those apathetic Americans until I read the autobiography of Ronald Reagan.
Alan Keyes has also helped me to understand that our constitutional republic was founded to protect the powerless (unborn, unable to vote) from the powerful (women who vote). Previous to the creation of our constitution, the powerless had been the poor and the powerful had been the landowner.
Apathetic Americans don't take the time to carefully consider the crime of abortion and how the argument supporting abortion is an argument based upon time. Time, of course, is a creation of man to measure his earthly existance, but God (which 95% of Americans believe in) is eternal, or timeless.
What that means is that status-quo abortion on demand does not reflect the beliefs of 75 percent of Americans,...."
This is technically incorrect. The status-quo, or current rule of law on abortions, is not that abortion is legal under all circumstances. Roe v. Wade clearly recognizes a state's right to protect the potentiality of life after the 2nd trimester.