Quote:


You might be on the subject of alternate realities.  I am asking an honest question that I have good reason to believe most pro-lifers have never even considered.  And when confronted with it, many of them don't know how to respond.  They want a return to pre Roe vs. Wade where abortion was illegal but not murder.  It just conflicted with their religious beliefs, to which the constitutional response would be "then don't get one." But if legislation were passed giving unborn babies the same status as born babies, abortion would become premeditated murder which is already illegal. But few prolifers seem to want to go that far.  That's the purpose of the two scenarios.  To sort the true pro lifers from the halfway pro lifers.

Book_Worm wrote on Jan 4^th, 2011 at 9:03pm:


Those are the true pro lifers.  The ones who, at least theoretically, would not be satisfied with merely a return to pre Roe vs Wade status when abortion was illegal but not murder, and seldom did anyone really suffer much of a penalty.  I plan to stick around and see if any of them post, and if any who feel otherwise also post.  I will bet more of the former than the latter, but so far not many of either.

Book_Worm wrote on Jan 4^th, 2011 at 11:58pm:


Perhaps I'll give it a try.  Meanwhile, you come across as a reasonable person.  I have determined that you believe the killling of an unborn baby via abortion on demand is premeditated murder deserving of the same penalty that killing a baby (post birth? not sure how to differentiate but you know what I mean) is deserving of.  Whether it's life without parole, death, whatever.  (Certainly more than a fine, though.) 

The next thing that I ponder on from time to time is in the case of rape or incest (involuntary incest, which is just rape but some make a distinction between the two; voluntary incest between two consenting parties, neither of which has exerted undue control over the other, is not equivalent to rape).  So let's just say rape. 

Same scenario as I first posted, but Margaret is impregnated via rape by a violent person with whom she is not acquainted.  If she aborts that baby, is that, in your opinion, still premeditated murder?

Book_Worm wrote on Jan 4^th, 2011 at 11:58pm:

So do termites.

I really thought this would generate a little discussion.  It seems to me that pro-lifers might be less pro-life if the baby being aborted is the product of violent rape of the mother to be.  That makes them, in reality, pro-choicers who want to be in charge of setting the criteria for deciding who can have an abortion and who can't.  Does anyone disagree with my inference?