Timelordwho wrote:
8. If most (ie. non-late term) abortions were performed prior to any real development of cranial tissue and organ growth, would you still be against them, conceptually? I ask this, because most are performed prior to this point. Anything in the first trimester is basically just a cellular mass, 2nd has appearance of form, but still nothing really concrete, and 3rd clearly has vital working components. Based on this, would you revise your position to something more akin to putting a prohibition on abortions performed after say, somewhere in the 12-18 weeks range (Which still allows abortions in the vast majority of current cases, but would curb the abuse potential)?
Convince liberals of this though. That's the problem. Just a couple days ago:
Quote:
Today the AZ House voted to ban all abortions after 20 weeks.
Meanwhile the GOP keeps saying that women will come around once they realize this Republican "War on Women" thing is all drummed up by the media.
Meanwhile the GOP keeps saying that women will come around once they realize this Republican "War on Women" thing is all drummed up by the media.
The reasonable compromise that you propose (actually something that acts later in pregnancy) is flatly labeled by Joph as proof of the GOP engaging in a "War on Women". At what point do we get to point out the absurdly unfair criteria which the GOP must meet in order to *not* be accused of engaging in a war on women?
