Inane presumption? It's not a presumption at all. It's a verifiable truth, though that doesn't mean people like yourself so inclined to ignore and deny truth for the sake of convenience see it as such. Never the less, as I said, only total nutbags would argue life is not a gift, no matter where you believe it came from, so it would be a winning premise politically.

I pray Hugh is right and I will celebrate vigorously if/when the national tragedy and disgrace that is Barack Obama is no longer POTUS. That said, I think we ought not start constructing in our minds a Mitt Romney that is not real. He will an infinitely better President than Obama, but that bar is so low, to steal an idea from William F. Buckley, so would the first 400 people chosen out of the Boston phone directory. If/when Mitt is elected, the work will really begin because getting him to reclaim and repair the limited government, fiscal responsibility Republican brand is going to be about as difficult as getting those 400 people in the Boston phone director to vote Republican.

Here's something that could be considered CRAZY or psycho. The idea that two victims is better than one.

And what of Obama's partial birth abortion stance? Why doesn't that position, which is far more extreme than Murdock's, cost Democrats the election? While you wring your hands about a perfectly defensible position to have, Democrats boldly move on without a care for their indefensible positions. If the bed wetters would stop reacting out of fear and actually make a strong defense for what is not a political loser of a position, we wouldn't have this problem. It would be nice to see some true Republicanism being espoused. The kind that holds in matters that are not and should not be the purview of federal government, it should be decided by the people of each state.

Well sure, since you've effectively ended any of the "obligation" it might place on somebody by choosing to end a life instead. It's a great to take that liberty, except of course for the one who's life is ended. It's easy to arrive at your position if you can arrive at the position that there is no obligation to respect a life that is not your own.

It really shouldn't matter. What matters is he believes life begins at conception, which is a reasonable position to hold, not to mention a mainstream position to hold. The awareness that life is happening inside there is intuitive to most couples who've been through pregnancy and anybody can observe that by watching a typical pregnant couple. It can also be observed through the emotional turmoil and regret that woman who've undergone abortions commonly live with. Beyond that, uncertainty should be enough to lead one to the default position of protecting it as human life. And once that premise is established, the decisions about "exceptions" for ending it should be easy to follow.

Yep, what Wendy doesn't realize is that she is basing her beliefs every bit as much on faith as the people she is accusing of lacking principled arguments. If you follow her rationale to it's logical conclusion, then the value of human life should reasonably be able to be scored based on a measure of it's physical and mental development. This is a very dangerous mentality and a very slippery slope upon which to build policy. It's the kind of thinking that allowed our forefathers to reach agreement that blacks were only three-fifths human being, which allowed them to justify slavery. It is a position arrived at via the abstract guidance of desire and wishes rather than reason.

The sad thing is you probably believe your position on this is some kind of proven science or even the more rational position, and it's simply not. Nobody is advocating slavery, but you very well may be advocating the destruction of human life, so I'll leave it to you to decide where you fall in the moral hierarchy. And let's not forget that so called "clump of cells" aren't just the woman's cells. Half the DNA is the man's, yet you demand eminent domain simply because it exists within your womb, which by logical extension must mean you also own the male part during intercourse and may do with it whatever you wish while it obviously counts as "your body". By the way, when does "the last couple weeks of pregnancy" begin?

Here's an idea. Why not back up our positions using a reason and logic based argument to either replace or supplement the faith based one? Few, not even many delusional liberals, would argue that life if a gift, regardless of where you believe the gift comes from. If one believes that life begins at conception, which is actually the the most logical point of demarcation, then all the other pro life arguments can rationally follow. Just explain it that way. The argument that God says so isn't enough, but that doesn't matter since a pro life position is the one consistent with reason and logic. Why don't Republicans ever argue it that way? It is frustrating