[Purple Haize]

Actually the Pro Life movement has been willing to chip away at abortion any way possible. It's the pro abortion movement that fights any and all restrictions on abortion.

Yes and No. Correct that Pro Choice leaders are staunch in their stand. But they have never been challenged en masses by a position on the other side. If the Pro Life factions actually coalesced around say a ban on 3rd Trimester abortions, the dogmatic Pro Choice crowd would not be able to fight it off. However, can you see what would happen if a candidate running for office got on stage a say TRBC and said, 'I favor a ban against late term abortions because we can't ban abortion!' It wouldn't be pretty. Now imagine that same politician saying 'I favor a ban of all abortions, except in case the life of the mother or rape or incest'. Still wouldn't get complete buy in. Finally, 'I favor banning abortions'. Who could say no to that? (I won't even go into the no birth control crowd who make up an interesting chunk as well).
So while it's easier for a Pro Choice person to hold their position, it's a weak one. If the Pro Life crowd would Focus the argument to banning 1 thing most can agree on and ONLY that one thing, it would be too powerful to stop. But they cannot, they get sidetracked and distracted. That's why I say I put the blame more on the Pro Life crowd. They could win but they refuse to do what needs to be done to win.

Every pro life organization I've volunteered for and worked with and donated to has supported legislation that does anything that could save lives, even if it doesn't completely outlaw abortion.

I honestly haven't met many Pro Life folks that would resist any legislation that would save lives.

Unfortunately, any restrictions at all get challenged in court by Planned Parenthood and pro-abortion regime and oftentimes are called unconstitutional.

The reality is that in order for those modest gains to stick, there needs to be the reconsideration at the top that re evaluates whether Roe v Wade decision had any constitutional standing at all.

You can simply look at the laws passed over the last several years that have been supported by the pro life movement to recognize that your perception isn't necessarily the reality on the ground.

Then you have been lucky. I run into people every week that say it's all or nothing. Any compromise is a compromise with the Devil. Don't believe me? Go up to some folks picketing an office that performs abortions and have a conversation with those people. It will be both educational and entertaining
One of the reasons the laws get held up or overturned in Court is because they are bad laws passed are poorly written Tennessee has had some pooh written laws passed that have run into trouble.
And again I refer you to the 3 candidates I mentioned above. Only one would be called a 'True' Pro Life Candidate. And only 1 would have no chance of getting anything done, because if he compromises and votes for a bill short of a total abortion ban they will be called a traitor to the movement. Which goes back to the 'All or Nothing' wing of the debate. They are the ones who make the other factions compromise with them.

[Yacht Rock]

I know that a lot of folks (including myself) prefer a 100% ban on killing babies.

I also know for a fact a lot of folks and organizations (including myself) will take any win to save lives on the way to a 100% ban.

I understand why you believe the reality you do. I myself won't compromise a babies life. So if legislation passes limiting abortion, it's a step in the right direction, but the battle isn't over.

There are more legislators, organizations, an individual's than you know who will take any win we can get to move the status quo. The difference is that just because the status quo might change, the battle won't be over.

I hope no one comes out and says they'd "settle" for only some babies dying. That'd be a pretty attrocious thing to support.

[Purple Haize]

I know that a lot of folks (including myself) prefer a 100% ban on killing babies.

I also know for a fact a lot of folks and organizations (including myself) will take any win to save lives on the way to a 100% ban.

I understand why you believe the reality you do. I myself won't compromise a babies life. So if legislation passes limiting abortion, it's a step in the right direction, but the battle isn't over.

There are more legislators, organizations, an individual's than you know who will take any win we can get to move the status quo. The difference is that just because the status quo might change, the battle won't be over.

I hope no one comes out and says they'd "settle" for only some babies dying. That'd be a pretty attrocious thing to support.

Compared to what we have now, I'd settle for something. And again, you demonstrate the problem. With your last sentence you marginalized a lot of people who would be helpful. THe very people who can turn the tide in limiting abortion, you just called them 'atrocious'. So instead of getting something, I.e 'settling', the status quo continues. Which leads to your first two points being moot. Because IF what you say is true, it would have already happened.
Instead, they lose focus on what they CAN accomplish instead their or their constituents end game.
I will take the support of those who may want to end 3rd Trimester abortions, but not all abortions. Why alienate them? We can agree, let's go do that. If that's all that can happen, then I count it a win, not an atrocity. If the Pro Life movement could get legislation banning all abortions and after the 1st trimester except in cases of rape but no more I'd be very happy with that.
As for the people and organizations I know, I'm know plenty on every stop of the spectrum starting with Operation Rescue back in the 80's to Plasned Parenthood in San Francisco.

[Yacht Rock]

You don't think it's atrocious to kill a child? No matter how you shape it it is an atrocity on the same level of the many other atrocities the world has faced throughout the years.

Like I said, I understand what you feel, but the facts don't back you up. I don't have time or the energy to provide all the citations to give you examples of different degrees of the pro life movement working together to pass legislation limiting abortion, but if and when I have time, I'll provide the data.

[alabama24]

I fully agree with you YR, but I think I understand part of PH's comment. There are people who are "Pro-Choice with exclusions" who might be helpful to move the yardstick forward on the issue. Are their "pro-choice" views atrocious? Yep. Do we need them to move the ball? Yep.

[Purple Haize]

I fully agree with you YR, but I think I understand part of PH's comment. There are people who are "Pro-Choice with exclusions" who might be helpful to move the yardstick forward on the issue. Are their "pro-choice" views atrocious? Yep. Do we need them to move the ball? Yep.

You are pretty close. I'm not sure calling a 'life of the mother' exception atrocious, others may say a 'Rape or Incest' exemption isn't atrocious., but you get the general idea.

YR, again, I know about a ton of movements and legislation working on the issue. TN being my most recent exposure. But at the end of the day they have not been able to solicit a position that would even get the ball rolling. And I guarantee you any one who doesn't run on an 'ENd 100% of all abortion' platform will be labeled a heretic and not supported. It's a Right Wing litmus test. A Republican nominee who says what I posited above , 'Abortion procedures should only be allowed in the case of rape, incest or life of the mother' would NEVER garner whole hearted support from Evangelicals even though that is a position that could become reality. Therefore they would never get elected. Therefore someone with a more radical view will be in a policy making position

[Yacht Rock]

First, what you are saying "should" happen, is happening now.

Secondly, many 100% pro life platform politicians support partial bans on abortion whenever it comes up for a vote.

Thirdly, it shouldn't be an extreme viewpoint to view the killing of children as bad at all stages in the womb. I honestly wouldn't support any politician who thinks that you can justify the killing of a child because at some point, if the status quo is moved, they'll stop trying. I want to invest in a politician who's long term goals respect all unborn children. That's where perhaps you see a disconnect. It is possible to support 100% bans wholeheartedly and support legislation that puts any sort of restrictions on abortion. It's not either/or.

[bluejacket]

First, what you are saying "should" happen, is happening now.

Secondly, many 100% pro life platform politicians support partial bans on abortion whenever it comes up for a vote.

Thirdly, it shouldn't be an extreme viewpoint to view the killing of children as bad at all stages in the womb. I honestly wouldn't support any politician who thinks that you can justify the killing of a child because at some point, if the status quo is moved, they'll stop trying. I want to invest in a politician who's long term goals respect all unborn children. That's where perhaps you see a disconnect. It is possible to support 100% bans wholeheartedly and support legislation that puts any sort of restrictions on abortion. It's not either/or.

Are there any medical exceptions that you would accept?

[Purple Haize]

First, what you are saying "should" happen, is happening now.

Secondly, many 100% pro life platform politicians support partial bans on abortion whenever it comes up for a vote.

Thirdly, it shouldn't be an extreme viewpoint to view the killing of children as bad at all stages in the womb. I honestly wouldn't support any politician who thinks that you can justify the killing of a child because at some point, if the status quo is moved, they'll stop trying. I want to invest in a politician who's long term goals respect all unborn children. That's where perhaps you see a disconnect. It is possible to support 100% bans wholeheartedly and support legislation that puts any sort of restrictions on abortion. It's not either/or.

1 - It's been 'happening' for years. You see the results. Not a lot to celebrate. Changing hearts and minds is a MUCH better option than through legislation. That actually works!
2 - see point 1. And point 3
3 - I see a contradiction You say you'll support the legislator who seeks to block some abortions. Then say you WONT support that person because you will ONLY support a person who supports a 100% ban. That's my point. Why NOT support the first one whole heartedly? Get the easy win. That person is much more likely to support your cause further down the road if you support them than if you don't.
4. And this is to Mr Jackets point, who decides which is the greater atrocity between killing a child and killing a child's mother?

[Yacht Rock]

It's not a contradiction and as a Christian, I can't vote for or donate to someone that is okay with the killing of children.

Does that mean I wouldn't support partnering with those same politicians if they aim to limit abortions in some way? Absolutely not. I'm just saying that killing only "some children" isn't an end game is support.

As far as medical exceptions, I'd prefer Doctors go into a situation with the goal of saving with mother and the baby.

You're assuming that saving a baby is actively killing the mother, etc. Remember that abortion is the active decision to take a life. It's not just something bad that happened during pregancy.

Like I said, you can have the goal of 100% ban and work with those who don't support a 100% ban. Those people will never get my vote, but if they are elected by others is work with them.

Look at the national "pro choice" organizations and see how much they welcome anything that limits abortions.

[Yacht Rock]

To the first point. I agree that changing hearts and mind is more valuable in the long run. That should never end. Due to the lives at risk, etc you have to do both.

When it comes to killing, it's reasonable to pursue legislation that outlaws it while hopefully getting people to a place where they believe it's wrong. Because in the end, we know that even if it is illegal, some people, albeit a smaller percentage, will still seek out services to end the life of their child.

Obviously we'll have to agree to disagree on this topic.

[Purple Haize]

To the first point. I agree that changing hearts and mind is more valuable in the long run. That should never end. Due to the lives at risk, etc you have to do both.

When it comes to killing, it's reasonable to pursue legislation that outlaws it while hopefully getting people to a place where they believe it's wrong. Because in the end, we know that even if it is illegal, some people, albeit a smaller percentage, will still seek out services to end the life of their child.

Obviously we'll have to agree to disagree on this topic.

It's all good. But it demonstrates the point and the difficulty. If someone with a position I stated was running, they would not get support from an Evangelical community. It's why I made my original comment.

I do believe that a medical exception should be made if the life of the mother is in danger. I don't know any doctor who would go into a situation like that and say, 'let's kill them both'. It's should be ,and is , a gut wrenching decision. And a decision that should be made by the couple and the doctor, not me. Different people will make different decisions. And because I feel that way in a situation involving maybe 5% of abortions, I would lose an election to someone who favors no constraints on abortion.

[bluejacket]

As far as medical exceptions, I'd prefer Doctors go into a situation with the goal of saving with mother and the baby.

You're assuming that saving a baby is actively killing the mother, etc. Remember that abortion is the active decision to take a life. It's not just something bad that happened during pregancy.

I agree with your preference that doctors' end goal should be saving the lives of both, but these situations are not always black and white.

I am referring to the very rare cases, but not unheard of, where a life ending decision must be made to save the mother's life by aborting the baby. Someone (doctor, spouse, mother, power of attorney, a combination, etc.) must decide to end a life to save a life. In the case of an abortion to save the mother's life, the decision-makers should not be held legally responsible for that decision.

[ALUmnus]

Video #5 released today.

[youtube]

[/youtube]

[Purple Haize]

Video #5 released today.

[youtube]

[/youtube]

Interesting. I guess they are ignoring the Court order for them not to release any more of the videos. The talking point though is already set and that is 'These videos are edited'. Which they ARE but not in significant ways. You also have access to the entire unedited clip. But detractors Wil just keep saying 'It's not true! They are edited'
And so it continues

[RubberMallet]

Video #5 released today.

[youtube]

[/youtube]

Interesting. I guess they are ignoring the Court order for them not to release any more of the videos. The talking point though is already set and that is 'These videos are edited'. Which they ARE but not in significant ways. You also have access to the entire unedited clip. But detractors Wil just keep saying 'It's not true! They are edited'
And so it continues

correct, one guy at work was like, they are editted. i asked if he had watched them, he hadn't. I said, you talk about documentaries all the time that outrage you or inform you about certain subjects, yes? (he does..its all he talks about) Are they edited? (of course they are). Well if you can find in some way something that shows that editting these videos added untrue vilification of these individuals, i'm welcome to seeing the evidence (silence) You do realize you can also watch the ENTIRE videos right? they are all out there. (more silence)

whats funny is about a few hours later he was back on his facebook page complaining about the editing....i posted "interesting in light of the discussion we had" .... he unfriended me....i see him everyday at work...we have like 25 employees. its kind of funny.

[Humble_Opinion]

Video #5 released today.

[youtube]

[/youtube]

Interesting. I guess they are ignoring the Court order for them not to release any more of the videos. The talking point though is already set and that is 'These videos are edited'. Which they ARE but not in significant ways. You also have access to the entire unedited clip. But detractors Wil just keep saying 'It's not true! They are edited'
And so it continues

correct, one guy at work was like, they are editted. i asked if he had watched them, he hadn't. I said, you talk about documentaries all the time that outrage you or inform you about certain subjects, yes? (he does..its all he talks about) Are they edited? (of course they are). Well if you can find in some way something that shows that editting these videos added untrue vilification of these individuals, i'm welcome to seeing the evidence (silence) You do realize you can also watch the ENTIRE videos right? they are all out there. (more silence)

whats funny is about a few hours later he was back on his facebook page complaining about the editing....i posted "interesting in light of the discussion we had" .... he unfriended me....i see him everyday at work...we have like 25 employees. its kind of funny.

Keep shredding my friend.

[Humble_Opinion]

I'm not really sure why it's awful to say I support abortion only in the case of rape/incest/medical issue and at the same time advocate for a law that has the support of the American people and could be pushed through congress that limits abortions to 5 months. The fact of the matter is that we have been waging war on Roe v. Wade for some time now, and to some degree we are pulling the rope back in our direction. However, if you don't take the victories you can get when they are sitting right in front of you, you will end up just being labeled an extremist and no one will pay attention to you any longer. This is what I don't understand about evangelical conservatives. Ronald Reagan, icon of the movement, when talking about negotiation was quoted as saying, "Question - What do you do if they offer you half a loaf?" "Answer - You take it and come back for more later." Reagan wasn't perfect, but he moved the ball, got things done on a whole host of conservative issues (with a Democrat Congress mind you) and moved the ball forward for the better. I understand you don't want to compromise your principle that all abortion is wrong, but for crying out loud... we have a majority of Americans ready and willing to stand for legislation banning abortion beyond 5 months and we don't want it because it's not good enough? Take what you can get when it's there and keep fighting for more and eventually we will get there. Very rarely do you win a war in one fell swoop... The Japs tried and failed miserably. You need victories to sustain your movement and help you move the ball forward with "middle-of-the-road" Americans.

[ALUmnus]

Outrageous.

I support abortion only in the case of.... The Japs

Okay, okay. You didn't say those two things quite like that, but you did say those two things.

[Purple Haize]

Outrageous.

I support abortion only in the case of.... The Japs

Okay, okay. You didn't say those two things quite like that, but you did say those two things.

Valtrex anyone?

[adam42381]

Jap is not the preferred nomenclature.

[Humble_Opinion]

Outrageous.

I support abortion only in the case of.... The Japs

Okay, okay. You didn't say those two things quite like that, but you did say those two things.

Well played

[Kiwon]

"Even the abortionist can see it’s a baby. So what’s wrong with the Democratic Party?"

Kirsten Powers: I've got news for Democrats. It's a baby!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... /31101983/

[ALUmnus]

Here's the latest video, showing that PP does not always obtain consent from the mothers to harvest the child's body parts/organs.

[youtube]

[/youtube]

The tax dollars are not just going to Planned Parenthood, either. It's also going to public universities to buy the parts for their research.

[RubberMallet]

stem express apparently has cut ties with planned parenthood due to some universities and businesses starting to not purchase materials from them.