In response to:

Problems Solutions and Trade Offs II

Nana82 Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 6:00 PM
I am tired of Johnny one note Adams.  And losing my patience with a lot of others. First of all, a President has NOTHING to do with abortion law. It's all up to congress and the supreme court. Yes, Presidents appoint justices but a candidate who would overturn Roe v Wade has zero chance if being seated any time soon.  It infuriates me that so many pro-lifers are so stubborn, so all-or-nothing-at-all, that they waste time, energy and opportunity arguing against a rape exclusion.  Let's start saving babies' lives NOW. First, there is wide support for out-lawing partial birth abortion. Next we work on late term, 7th and 8th month.   I know some of you think your future Salvation is at stake, but infants survival is at stake TODAY.
Dogs for Romney_TX Chair Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 10:22 PM
Nana, you've got some good points here.

First of all, I agree. Let's start saving babies' lives right now. I would be in favor of a "rape exception" ONLY if the victim had reported the crime and sought treatment immediately from an emergency room. Late term abortions should be illegal, no exceptions. If it is necessary to safe the LIFE of the mother, then the child should be removed and, if it shows signs of life be taken to the NICU for care.

But FIRST there are some other measures that can be taken such as....

Parental consent laws. A teen must have parental consent to have a tattoo or to visit a tanning bed. Why should abortion be any different.

Requiring abortion clinics to be licensed and inspected....
Dogs for Romney_TX Chair Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 10:27 PM
....just like ambulatory care clinics.

The president may not have anything directly to do with abortion law, but the Supreme Court justices he appoints DO. Reagan was elected twice by landslides. He made it no secret that he wanted to overturn Roe, and would have been successful if he had gotten Robert Bork on the bench. Unfortunately Teddy (Swimmer) Kennedy had other ideas.
Richard19 Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 6:21 PM
The President used to not have anything to do with abortion law. But you must have been out of the country for awhile. We now have an executive order dictator, who controls all law and everything else too.
He writes new executive orders like someone writing new cake recipes.
bgmk Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 6:19 PM
To note that "exceptions" are cognitive dissonances is NOT to be "all or nothing". To have the Intellectual Integrity to Admit, as Theologian Francis Schaeffer puts it, "the logical outcome of one's presuppositions" allows no exceptions is to be TRUTHFUL to, as the Psalms define a righteous man, "swear to your own hurt and not change."
It seems to me one can Maintain Intellectual Integrity---"Theologically I cannot favor exceptions"---and yet make what Foward Progress one may on the Legislative Front and the Judicial Front by voting for Legislatures and Executives who will appoint Only Pro-Life Justices.
Why do you seem to argue that one has to sacrifice Intellectual Integrity for Political Process? Why can't it be both?
Nana82 Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 6:01 PM
Mother of 4 is exempt from my argument. We have agreed to respectfully disagree on this matter.

Nana82 Wrote: Sep 10, 2012 6:09 PM
You are welcome dear lady. :-)
Most of my columns are meant to expose the hypocrisy of self-described liberals who have taken over our institutions of higher learning. However, on some occasions, I attempt to address misguided thinking among self-described conservatives. An example is my recent column “Romney and the Rapist,” which was described by many readers as either “weird” or “convoluted” or both. Those descriptions are indeed accurate and reflect the intention behind the controversial essay. It was my intention to write a column that would identify absurd arguments as a means of drawing out the flawed reasoning of those who would support Romney’s proposed rape...