Texan Anti-abortion extremists urge kidnapping of women on way to clinic

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

FEARS are held for the safety of women in Texas after an anti-abortion group infiltrated a pro-choice volunteering service, with the aim of kidnapping women to change their minds on abortion.

A post circulating on Facebook released the email of a volunteer group within The Cicada Collective, an "autonomous community-centred group of reproductive justice organisers located in North Texas".

According to the post, the Collective was looking for volunteers to "shuttle TX women around for their abortion appointments" and called for anti-choice campaigners to apply, undercover, in a bid to lure the women away.

It then urges the undercover guises to instead ferry the women to a Church to delay the abortion and ultimately, change her mind.

"I'm not suggesting you actually takea (sic) woman to an abortion clinic," it reads.

"It's a wonderful opportunity to minister to an abortion minded woman for an hour while you DON'T take her to the clinic."

"And hey if you can't change her mind by the time she gets out of your car and realises she is at church and not the clinic she's missed her appointment anyway".

It wasn't long before it was seen by the Cicada Collective, who described the post as horrifying".

The group blamed for the post, Abolish Human Abortion, have been defending themselves against angry users.

"We deny that we support it," they posted in response to one user.

"Kidnapping and abortion are wrong for the same reasons, they both violate the inherent rights and dignity of other human beings."

Texas has had its fair share of abortion controversies of late, with the Senate approving a bill with some of the strictest limits on abortion in the United States.

The pro-life bill, House Bill 2, went into effect on October 29, banning abortions after 22 weeks of pregnancy. A dozen abortion clinics are also set to close because hospitals in their district have failed to respond to requests for admittance privileges, also now a requirement.

Approximately 80,000 Texan women undergo abortions every year. There will now be 20 facilities in a state of 26 million people.

Source: http://www.news.com.au/world/antiabortion-extremists-urge-kidnapping-of-women-on-way-to-clinic/story-fndir2ev-1226757470246

So, just when you thought that American anti-abortion tactics couldn't get much lower, we have a group who were planning to straight up kidnap women under the guise of someone they'd be inclined to trust and try to badger them into changing their mind, as well as making sure they can't get to their appointment. So it's not enough to be steadily making up as many loopholes as possible to make actually getting an Abortion in the state a nightmare, the more extremist front are moving to outright kidnapping to stop abortion from happening.

Hopefully this is as low as this goes, since the alternatives are either physically destroying abortion centres or kidnapping women and forcing them to give birth.

So, what are my fellow escapists thoughts on these developments? Are these guys the lunatic fringe who will fade into the background and be ignored by the less-extreme pro-lifers, or the next step in how ugly the abortion debate is going to get?

Well...that shouldn't be that horrific. I mean, anti-abortion activists regularly resort to bullets and bombs, it just doesn't make news so much for various reasons.

However, something about this seems particularly bad, can't put my finger on it though.

thaluikhain:
However, something about this seems particularly bad, can't put my finger on it though.

Anti-abortion groups infiltrating groups designed to give support to women seeking abortions, luring them into a vehicle under false pretences and then driving them to a building of a faith they may not even believe in, leaving them stranded, possibly far away from home, their trust betrayed and feeling even more isolated than before?

Fuck, at least the bullets and bombs are honest about what they are.

I spent around 10 minutes searching for an adequate meme to properly describe my feelings towards these people, but i allways ended up at "Go kill yourself", and that seems like it would be in bad taste, even if its honest.

But no, seriously. I really hope this is some fake-shtick to get attention or something. I really dont want to believe that these nutjobs would go that far to enforce their retardation.

The worst part for me after reading this is that if they go through with these kidnappings i bet there would be juries that might let them walk on the charges.

Excellent. It's about damn time.

Not that people are kidnapping women or violating the law to force their anti-choice views on women. That's reprehensible and needs to be punished to the maximum possible degree by the law.

But for far, far too long, the American right wing in general and the anti-abortion crowd in particular have gotten away with using irresponsible language to describe their position. They proclaim abortion to be murder despite it very clearly not being murder[1]. And they've comfortably sat in that grey area of making extreme claims but not doing anything about it, in my personal opinion likely because it makes one feel important to make extreme claims. You get to feel like you're a soldier in a great righteous war, not some schmo in a dead-end job with only the hope of being kind to your family and friends as a way of making an impact on life.

Now these anti-abortionists have to make a choice. Do they really have the courage of their convictions? Do they really, truly believe there is a higher law than US law, one that makes abortion murder despite it being legal under national law? If so, then they must stand against the law. They must have the courage to do whatever it takes to defy that law, even if it means violating other laws and facing the consequences of being a criminal vigilante. If they don't have the courage of their convictions or are frightened by what they see in the people who do claim the courage of their convictions, then it's time to change the language they use so that they can express what they really think about abortion. And what they really think is that it is not murder. They just don't like abortion. And that's fine. If you just don't like abortion, sensible people can work together to minimize it without infringing on people's rights.

People can either get their head out of their asses and quit pretending to be prayer warriors, or they can follow that road to its dark, unpleasant end. But this faffing about in between with talking the talk without walking the walk isn't doing anyone any favors.

[1] "Murder" referring to an unlawful killing of a human. Even if one assumes without objective justification that a fetus is a human, under law it is legal, therefore it cannot possibly be murder.

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:
People can either get their head out of their asses and quit pretending to be prayer warriors, or they can follow that road to its dark, unpleasant end. But this faffing about in between with talking the talk without walking the walk isn't doing anyone any favors.

Er...what? I think I've totally missed what you were saying.

Bigots have been firebombing abortion clinics for decades now, how is something like this any different?

thaluikhain:

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:
People can either get their head out of their asses and quit pretending to be prayer warriors, or they can follow that road to its dark, unpleasant end. But this faffing about in between with talking the talk without walking the walk isn't doing anyone any favors.

Er...what? I think I've totally missed what you were saying.

Bigots have been firebombing abortion clinics for decades now, how is something like this any different?

As an aside, I don't think firebombing an abortion clinic necessarily makes one a bigot. It makes them a dangerous vigilante that society should lock away, but whether or not they believe their personal interpretation of holy law can be forced on others is a failing entirely different from their opinion about which classes of people are better than others.

But the point is that though there have been people who have committed violence against abortion doctors and clinics, in truth they are rare enough that the mainstream abortion movement can pretend not to endorse them. And that middle area of using language where the only logical conclusion is violence but not condoning the violence traps us in a holding pattern where we as a society can't move the debate forward. Either you're the equivalent of a jihadist, or you're not. And once all the wanna-be jihadists wise up or meet the end all jihadists meet, the rest of us can move on with our lives and work toward fixing this.

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:
People can either get their head out of their asses and quit pretending to be prayer warriors, or they can follow that road to its dark, unpleasant end. But this faffing about in between with talking the talk without walking the walk isn't doing anyone any favors.

So are you basically saying that they should make up their mind if they are either bible bashing door-to-door protesters or domestic terrorists with a religious agenda?

Nothing against your view, I kinda agree, just want to make sure I'm getting my facts straight.

...

That is colossally fucked up.

Not a lot more needs to be said. Though I expect the defenders of this to come out of the woodwork soon enough...

EDIT: AAAANNDD as soon as I push enter, this story pops up on my Facebook feed... as a positive story from a religious friend praising the kidnappers for doing everything in their power to enforce God's will and prevent the murder of babies.

I'm done... Off the deep end... Cukoo Cukoo Cukoo...

NameIsRobertPaulson:
...

That is colossally fucked up.

Not a lot more needs to be said. Though I expect the defenders of this to come out of the woodwork soon enough...

EDIT: AAAANNDD as soon as I push enter, this story pops up on my Facebook feed... as a positive story from a religious friend praising the kidnappers for doing everything in their power to enforce God's will and prevent the murder of babies.

I'm done... Off the deep end... Cukoo Cukoo Cukoo...

Why is said person your friend?
Honestly, why?

OT: Not much to say except arrest those that encourage (including, perhaps, depending on wording, those that do it on Facebook) said actions, as it is illegal (as far as I know) to encourage and promote criminal activity.

Realitycrash:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
...

That is colossally fucked up.

Not a lot more needs to be said. Though I expect the defenders of this to come out of the woodwork soon enough...

EDIT: AAAANNDD as soon as I push enter, this story pops up on my Facebook feed... as a positive story from a religious friend praising the kidnappers for doing everything in their power to enforce God's will and prevent the murder of babies.

I'm done... Off the deep end... Cukoo Cukoo Cukoo...

Why is said person your friend?
Honestly, why?

OT: Not much to say except arrest those that encourage (including, perhaps, depending on wording, those that do it on Facebook) said actions, as it is illegal (as far as I know) to encourage and promote criminal activity.

Meh, despite being extremely religious people (told me directly to my face that my lesbian parents will burn in hell), they are still decent people, and I've known them for about 25 years.

What are you all flipping out about? Some anonymous[1] person sent a group a message with this idea, and not only did the message somehow miraculously get to the abortion ride givers before trouble happened, the group in question vehemently denies they support such nonsense? Nobody has actually been kidnapped.

I call hoax.

[1] And I mean anonymous. I found the facebook profile that first posted this message, and it has literally no public information except for the name "Praying For You". It is not an organization of people, it is one, possibly trolling, account.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Realitycrash:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
...

That is colossally fucked up.

Not a lot more needs to be said. Though I expect the defenders of this to come out of the woodwork soon enough...

EDIT: AAAANNDD as soon as I push enter, this story pops up on my Facebook feed... as a positive story from a religious friend praising the kidnappers for doing everything in their power to enforce God's will and prevent the murder of babies.

I'm done... Off the deep end... Cukoo Cukoo Cukoo...

Why is said person your friend?
Honestly, why?

OT: Not much to say except arrest those that encourage (including, perhaps, depending on wording, those that do it on Facebook) said actions, as it is illegal (as far as I know) to encourage and promote criminal activity.

Meh, despite being extremely religious people (told me directly to my face that my lesbian parents will burn in hell), they are still decent people, and I've known them for about 25 years.

You and I have very different views of what constitute 'decent people'. Encouraging kidnapping isn't on my list.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
...

That is colossally fucked up.

Not a lot more needs to be said. Though I expect the defenders of this to come out of the woodwork soon enough...

EDIT: AAAANNDD as soon as I push enter, this story pops up on my Facebook feed... as a positive story from a religious friend praising the kidnappers for doing everything in their power to enforce God's will and prevent the murder of babies.

I'm done... Off the deep end... Cukoo Cukoo Cukoo...

Here is a little fun you can have with said person. If everything is all gods will, then doesn't that mean it was god's will for the woman to have an abortion? If so, aren't these people trying to directly interfere with god's will?

Something smells fishy here. I'm not sure this is even legit. And if it is... well, it's obviously someone nutty. I certainly hope that people here aren't willing to paint an entire movement with the actions of a deranged few.

SargeSmash:
Something smells fishy here. I'm not sure this is even legit. And if it is... well, it's obviously someone nutty. I certainly hope that people here aren't willing to paint an entire movement with the actions of a deranged few.

"The deranged few" seems to be a few thousand, if you count all of the bombings, killings, death threats, assaults, and other crimes committed by the "pro-life" movement since 1974.

SargeSmash:
Something smells fishy here. I'm not sure this is even legit. And if it is... well, it's obviously someone nutty. I certainly hope that people here aren't willing to paint an entire movement with the actions of a deranged few.

Considering assassinations and terrorism has been used frequently by these groups this is hardly beyond their standard ways of operating.

OT: Since they're part of a wider terrorist movement I believe they should be annihilated with the same fervor and disregard for the constitution that the Islamist are.

You want to believe that the actions of the few constitute represent the views of millions, go right ahead. I would argue that you're being incredibly disingenuous by doing so. No reputable pro-life organizations condone or support behavior in this manner.

What if we branded environmentalists by the actions of eco-terror groups? What if we decided that all those that support Marxist ideology support the sort of killings that occurred in Communist Russia? Or even further, we are often told that we cannot judge the actions of those in the Islamic faith by the actions of their extremists, despite Islamist terror being far more prevalent in the world. I try not to do that. Nuts exist everywhere, under many banners. Many simply use it as an excuse for doing something more heinous, then hiding behind the ideology.

Now, in some peoples' eyes, they already view the ideology of being "pro-life" as extreme, so they are probably more disposed towards taking another leap in saying the pro-life movement consists of a bunch of domestic terrorists. I also suspect that there's no way I could convince those folks otherwise.

By anti-abortion protester logic, to end the kidnappings we should kill all women on their way to the clinics.

SargeSmash:
You want to believe that the actions of the few constitute represent the views of millions, go right ahead. I would argue that you're being incredibly disingenuous by doing so. No reputable pro-life organizations condone or support behavior in this manner.

What if we branded environmentalists by the actions of eco-terror groups? What if we decided that all those that support Marxist ideology support the sort of killings that occurred in Communist Russia? Or even further, we are often told that we cannot judge the actions of those in the Islamic faith by the actions of their extremists, despite Islamist terror being far more prevalent in the world. I try not to do that. Nuts exist everywhere, under many banners. Many simply use it as an excuse for doing something more heinous, then hiding behind the ideology.

Now, in some peoples' eyes, they already view the ideology of being "pro-life" as extreme, so they are probably more disposed towards taking another leap in saying the pro-life movement consists of a bunch of domestic terrorists. I also suspect that there's no way I could convince those folks otherwise.

You assume that I believe in freedom of speech, I do not. As such I don't think anti-abortion groupings should be allowed to simply state their arguments for their position, much less conduct terror bombings, assassinations or abductions that the reactionary American political and legal establishment approve of. It is hard to define a reputable anti-abortion grouping as no such group is known to exist.

As for your point about environmentalists, this is not feasible for the American reactionary groupings at this time, owing to their own historical campaigns of slavery, warmongering and genocide. It is also telling that you need to try hard not to brand over a billion people as vicious savages on account of the response that American wars of imperialism in the middle east has received.

Soviet Steve:

You assume that I believe in freedom of speech, I do not. As such I don't think anti-abortion groupings should be allowed to simply state their arguments for their position, much less conduct terror bombings, assassinations or abductions that the reactionary American political and legal establishment approve of. It is hard to define a reputable anti-abortion grouping as no such group is known to exist.

As for your point about environmentalists, this is not feasible for the American reactionary groupings at this time, owing to their own historical campaigns of slavery, warmongering and genocide. It is also telling that you need to try hard not to brand over a billion people as vicious savages on account of the response that American wars of imperialism in the middle east has received.

Of course they shouldn't be able to conduct terror bombings, assassinations, or abductions. And you think this behavior is approved of in the American political and legal establishment? Where do you live, my friend? Because I certainly don't see approval, especially not from a political point of view. Especially since the Democratic party is vehemently pro-choice, and the Republican establishment can't dump the pro-life movement soon enough, in their eyes.

And where did I lump in over a billion people as savages? There are good Muslims, and there are extremists. Just like any movement. Or are you making the case that the entirety of the strife in the Middle East doesn't stem from Islamic extremism at all, but is solely created by American "imperialism"?

I'm honestly not sure how to continue responding. It's pretty clear we're coming from completely incompatible points of view. Our base ideology likely doesn't even lend towards reasonable discourse. We'll just have to agree to (vehemently) disagree.

Diablo1099:

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:
People can either get their head out of their asses and quit pretending to be prayer warriors, or they can follow that road to its dark, unpleasant end. But this faffing about in between with talking the talk without walking the walk isn't doing anyone any favors.

So are you basically saying that they should make up their mind if they are either bible bashing door-to-door protesters or domestic terrorists with a religious agenda?

Nothing against your view, I kinda agree, just want to make sure I'm getting my facts straight.

That's pretty close, though I'm less critical of protesting abortion (I obviously don't agree with protesting it, but it's people's right) and more just with the over-heated language used in the protest. Words have meaning, and we as a society need to stop using words that mean something other than what we actually believe just because they feel good to say.

SargeSmash:
You want to believe that the actions of the few constitute represent the views of millions, go right ahead. I would argue that you're being incredibly disingenuous by doing so. No reputable pro-life organizations condone or support behavior in this manner.

What if we branded environmentalists by the actions of eco-terror groups? What if we decided that all those that support Marxist ideology support the sort of killings that occurred in Communist Russia? Or even further, we are often told that we cannot judge the actions of those in the Islamic faith by the actions of their extremists, despite Islamist terror being far more prevalent in the world. I try not to do that. Nuts exist everywhere, under many banners. Many simply use it as an excuse for doing something more heinous, then hiding behind the ideology.

Now, in some peoples' eyes, they already view the ideology of being "pro-life" as extreme, so they are probably more disposed towards taking another leap in saying the pro-life movement consists of a bunch of domestic terrorists. I also suspect that there's no way I could convince those folks otherwise.

It boils down to whether you believe that abortion is murder. If you do then by most moral standards you would be required to do anything in your power to stop it. If you knew that a child was about to be murdered, would you not try to stop it even if it meant you would have to use violence against the perpetrators?

So if you assume that the anti-abortion people are committed to their beliefs then one can conclude that they would be willing to use violence to stop abortions from occurring.

SargeSmash:
Especially since the Democratic party is vehemently pro-choice, and the Republican establishment can't dump the pro-life movement soon enough, in their eyes.

Right...so all the news laws aimed at making abortions more difficult over the last few years have just happened for no reason?

Nielas:

It boils down to whether you believe that abortion is murder. If you do then by most moral standards you would be required to do anything in your power to stop it. If you knew that a child was about to be murdered, would you not try to stop it even if it meant you would have to use violence against the perpetrators?

So if you assume that the anti-abortion people are committed to their beliefs then one can conclude that they would be willing to use violence to stop abortions from occurring.

Not sure I agree with that assessment. Two wrongs don't make a right. This is why you typically see many that oppose abortion try to convince the mother to not abort the child, not bomb clinics, which is a horrific, terrible thing that goes against (specifically Christian) doctrine. For the record, I believe there is a point at which it is murder. Scientifically, where that point is, I do not know. Some believe it to be at conception, others at some point after that. But I find the argument that the point is binary based on whether the child is within the womb or without rather illogical. Even more capricious is the idea that life should be determined solely by whether the mother wants the child or not. We honestly do need a discussion on where life begins, but until I have that knowledge personally, I'm going to err on the side of possibly preserving life.

I'm actually legitimately curious, though, what peoples' thoughts here are on what that point is, unless we just don't want to get into that topic, because I know how these topics tend to go. :P

thaluikhain:

SargeSmash:
Especially since the Democratic party is vehemently pro-choice, and the Republican establishment can't dump the pro-life movement soon enough, in their eyes.

Right...so all the news laws aimed at making abortions more difficult over the last few years have just happened for no reason?

Well, I do think there should be reasonable cutoffs for when a woman can obtain an abortion (with the obvious health of the mother exceptions). The bill mentioned in the original post apparently puts restrictions up near the third trimester, and I think that's a reasonable restriction.

To address your point, much of this push occurs on the local and state level. I was thinking more in terms of the national parties, which operate a bit differently.

tstorm823:
I call hoax.

Yeah, the abortion clinic shootings and bombings are pretty out there, though they did happen. This, though? This is just unbelievable. Must be a hoax.

SargeSmash:
We honestly do need a discussion on where life begins, but until I have that knowledge personally, I'm going to err on the side of possibly preserving life.

No, I think the point for discussion is well past. Everyone and their dog has an opinion about abortion, and the national discussion hasn't budged in like 3 decades. What we need now is not opinions, but insights. If you want the status quo to change (abortions being legal) then the only way society is going to accept that is when anti-abortionists are ready to bring some ideas to the table that are new and innovative.

And I don't see that happening. "But I think it's a life!" isn't going to cut it. Until you can provide an objective reason for why we should agree with you, one that hasn't been debunks a thousand times in the discussion already, you aren't adding to the discussion.

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:

No, I think the point for discussion is well past. Everyone and their dog has an opinion about abortion, and the national discussion hasn't budged in like 3 decades. What we need now is not opinions, but insights. If you want the status quo to change (abortions being legal) then the only way society is going to accept that is when anti-abortionists are ready to bring some ideas to the table that are new and innovative.

And I don't see that happening. "But I think it's a life!" isn't going to cut it. Until you can provide an objective reason for why we should agree with you, one that hasn't been debunks a thousand times in the discussion already, you aren't adding to the discussion.

But neither side is using science. That's my point. Many pro-abortion advocates aren't willing to scientifically define where life begins, and any restrictions at all on abortion is anathema to them. Many religious folks define it as beginning at conception, so any abortion outside of health-of-the-mother is a non-starter. I don't see anything new on the table from either side, so I'd turn your argument around on you and say that "I don't think it's a life!" is going to cut it, either.

tstorm823:
What are you all flipping out about? Some anonymous[1] person sent a group a message with this idea, and not only did the message somehow miraculously get to the abortion ride givers before trouble happened, the group in question vehemently denies they support such nonsense? Nobody has actually been kidnapped.

I call hoax.

It's interesting that aside from one person just taking your last line and making it out to be your entire argument, everyone has ignored your post.

[1] And I mean anonymous. I found the facebook profile that first posted this message, and it has literally no public information except for the name "Praying For You". It is not an organization of people, it is one, possibly trolling, account.

SargeSmash:

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:

No, I think the point for discussion is well past. Everyone and their dog has an opinion about abortion, and the national discussion hasn't budged in like 3 decades. What we need now is not opinions, but insights. If you want the status quo to change (abortions being legal) then the only way society is going to accept that is when anti-abortionists are ready to bring some ideas to the table that are new and innovative.

And I don't see that happening. "But I think it's a life!" isn't going to cut it. Until you can provide an objective reason for why we should agree with you, one that hasn't been debunks a thousand times in the discussion already, you aren't adding to the discussion.

But neither side is using science. That's my point. Many pro-abortion advocates aren't willing to scientifically define where life begins, and any restrictions at all on abortion is anathema to them. Many religious folks define it as beginning at conception, so any abortion outside of health-of-the-mother is a non-starter. I don't see anything new on the table from either side, so I'd turn your argument around on you and say that "I don't think it's a life!" is going to cut it, either.

You are erroneously shifting the burden of proof. The status quo is that abortion is legal. Women have the right to an abortion. If you want to change that and take away people's rights, it is your job to prove its necessity.

This is basic conservativism. If you want to change what we have, you need to provide a compelling reason. The rules don't change just because you really, really want the change.

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:

You are erroneously shifting the burden of proof. The status quo is that abortion is legal. Women have the right to an abortion. If you want to change that and take away people's rights, it is your job to prove its necessity.

This is basic conservativism. If you want to change what we have, you need to provide a compelling reason. The rules don't change just because you really, really want the change.

Eh, not really. There wasn't a whole lot of medical evidence out there when Roe v. Wade went through the Supreme Court. And there are many scholars of both liberal and conservative bent that agree that the decision is just bad law.

Just because something is the status quo doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be challenged, ever. This is what happened when abortion was legalized, and the status quo was that abortion was illegal. I don't subscribe to the idea that we can't re-examine the issue based on forty years of medical progress. There are plenty of challenges to the current law, but many on the pro-abortion (particularly late term) side of things don't see anything as a compelling reason to abridge such rights, and indeed, fall back on the "law of the land" position, as if that alone wins the argument.

SargeSmash:

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:

You are erroneously shifting the burden of proof. The status quo is that abortion is legal. Women have the right to an abortion. If you want to change that and take away people's rights, it is your job to prove its necessity.

This is basic conservativism. If you want to change what we have, you need to provide a compelling reason. The rules don't change just because you really, really want the change.

Eh, not really. There wasn't a whole lot of medical evidence out there when Roe v. Wade went through the Supreme Court. And there are many scholars of both liberal and conservative bent that agree that the decision is just bad law.

Just because something is the status quo doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be challenged, ever. This is what happened when abortion was legalized, and the status quo was that abortion was illegal. I don't subscribe to the idea that we can't re-examine the issue based on forty years of medical progress. There are plenty of challenges to the current law, but many on the pro-abortion (particularly late term) side of things don't see anything as a compelling reason to abridge such rights, and indeed, fall back on the "law of the land" position, as if that alone wins the argument.

The issue isn't that a law should never be challenged, it's that the current legal status is the default and if the law is to be challenged, it needs to be done for a compelling reason.

In this particular scenario, what it really boils down to is that both sides lack specific, detailed definitions for what constitutes "human" and "life." However, since the law is currently the default, those who have a lack of specifics that agree with the current legal standing have the advantage in that they are not the ones who need to provide the compelling reason to change the current status.

Is it fair? No. Is it reality? Yes. Before Roe v Wade, the reverse of this position was true. It was those who sought to change the status quo from abortions being illegal to legal who were required to provide a compelling reason. One of the major reasons provided at the time was that, illegal or not, abortions were taking place and that they were being done at unacceptable levels of risk to the life of the mother. Changing the law at the time would address that compelling reason.

My overall point is that, to much of the pro-abortion movement, there is no compelling reason. It's not that challenges don't come, or even reasonable challenges, it's that too many stick their fingers in their ears and don't want to hear it. (I'm not saying folks here are like that, but I've most certainly encountered it in other places.)

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked