Call it what it is.

If it's God's will, it's God's will. Cannot kill the "unborn baby" to save the mother.

...you you only agree with their solution. You don't agree with their crackpot theories on either science or religion...

you have not adopted at least 3 or 4 kids.

I am pro-life and NOT religious at all. No "deeply held religious beliefs." I think there are a lot of us like that in the Democratic party. Have you ever heard of NUANCED?

Geez. This is getting old. You, and others who post this kind of claptrap, do nothing but alienate the people you should be winning over. Unbelieveable.

Or do you think the State should step in and make those decisions for her?

that she carries.

I think that we need to work to make abortion a rarity; not necessarily through criminalizing it (although I have thought about that, previously), but through early sex education and providing easy access to birth control. I've said before that I think that we need to make it a moot point, but there are people who don't agree that it will ever be that. I understand their point of view, and I would be satisfied with making it a rarity. I believe that Americans are going to, somehow, have to come together on this issue, if we are ever to win over the corporatists.

Since you believe that, NOW you are saying YOU get to make some kind of moral judgement call on WHO gets to have that "rare" abortion?

Who made you gawd? (not that you're a believer) but if you're going to stand in judgement, then you are reserving for yourself the role of moral arbiter.

I'm putting you on ignore. I'm tired of you following me around DU and berating me.

Ugh, I don't know why posters who want to criminalize a legal medical procedure are allowed to spew that shit here.

It's shameful.

it is totally absurd to argue that a life of the mother or for that matter a physical health of the mother exception is somehow not justifiable. Self defense has never depended upon intent. Intent can help but is neither sufficient, nor necessary for a claim of self defense. To take two examples. In example one, you are in your locked house with a man screaming at the top of his lungs that he is going to kill you. He has no gun and can't break in. He surely has every intention of killing you, but if you shoot him in many places it wouldn't be self defense since he has no means. In example two, you are sound asleep and a guy with a knife comes in your window. He approaches your bed and you shoot him. It turns out he was drunk and thought he was breaking into his bedroom, not yours. You wouldn't be indicted in most jurisdictions due to self defense. Here he had no intention but he actions were so manifestly threatening you wouldn't be expected to wait. If a pregnancy, is threatening your life, you get to end it.

I am pro-choice but it does seem kind of morally inconsistent for only the pregnancies resulting from rape or incest to be exempt... the fetus (or, depending on your point of view, unborn child) is blameless regardless of the method of conception.

So I think that, although there's a range of opinions on this subject, as a rule the people who don't make exceptions are the sincere ones and the people who would make exceptions only do so for political expediency.

"Pro-Life" is predicated on the assumption that the trait known as "Life" (and that's human life *artificially differentiated from any and all other life) is the single and sole value upon which all other values should be predicated. The logical extension of that "Pro-Life" assumption is that more *life is better *life.

That's not true. More of something, without any qualities whatsoever ascribed to it, that is, unqualified more of anything, e.g. *life without qualities of any type other than more life, isn't necessarily better than less, without qualities of some-sort, it is simply more. Just like more sand isn't necessarily better than less sand, more *life isn't, in and of itself, necessarily better *life. A bucket of sand is NOT better than a cup, when all that is needed is enough for a counter-weight.

So what qualities, what qualification, might be ascribed to *life that could increase the probability that more *life actually can be better than less of it?

If there is a valid necessity in accepting an artificial differentiation between human *life and all other life, maybe a quality that establishes that difference would be a basis for predicating that more *life is better *life. It is conventionally understood that one such quality that makes humans different from all other life is a quality known as freedom. Though there are problems with exactly what that word means and whether whatever it means actually is a valid phenomenon, let's accept it hypothetically as a basis for saying that Pro-*Life, i.e. more *life, is better than its negation.

Therefore, what makes more human *life better *life is the extent to which any given *life is free, that is the extent to which freedom is an essential trait of more *life. So, where does freedom come from, what is it that makes someone free?

If freedom is the ability to CHOOSE to do, or not to do, something whatever the consequences of one's choice, it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that freedom is a potential outcome of one's abilities to do things, the outcome of the development of the skills and aptitudes that are the basis of CHOOSING, i.e. a product of comprehensive, complete, appropriate, life-long education.

So it is from learning & education that the qualities of life come that make more *life better *life, therefore the extent to which more *life impinges upon development/learning/education of *life is the extent to which it is the negation of the freedom that makes more *life authentically better *life.

Therefore, the extent to which "Pro-Life" propagandizes more *life is better *life, without stipulating what makes that so and including (since there is no criteria, no qualities, no values or standards, other than "more&quot even life as the result of rape (which can be, btw, also a negation of the choice/freedom that makes human life more valuable), is the extent to which it devalues whatever it is (for example autonomous freedom/developed-skills-&-aptitudes/learning/education and related things such as health care and economic justice) that makes more life better life and that is, the extent to which it is not authentically Pro-Life.

circumstances more than those who make exceptions for the life of the woman, or rape or incest, or some other metric. If it's murder when a fictional 17-year-old wants to fit in her fictional prom dress, and it's murder when the married mother-of-three and her partner decide they don't want a fourth, and it's murder when the crack whore turns up pregnant again for the fifth time this year, then why isn't it murder when the 32-year-old society wife is raped and gets pregnant?

Even those who claim to be democrats. This party has clearly stated its position on choice. We've moved far enough to the right and don't need trojan donkeys fighting if on an issue so vital to women's health that was decided decades ago.

Fuck DFLA and anyone who supports them.