Being Anti-Abortion undermining Republican party?

[classicaliberal]

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

My question is not the arguments, but a fundamental issue.

If the Republicans champion small government and individual (and state) rights, isn't the very act of championing an Abortion ban completely undermines the platform they promote?

(They also refer strongly to religious reasons on why to ban abortion, but Amendment 1 clearly states separation of religion in politics, but its vagueness leaves some wiggle room)

Wrong on three major accounts:

1) Anti-Abortion is not a big government position. Well, it can be, but usually isn't. This is a myth perpetrated by leftist partisans. Here's why...

The entire abortion debate boils down to one question. When exactly the baby/fetus becomes 'human life.' People on both sides of the political aisle agree that one human ending another human life is murder. Everyone pretty much believes in preventing one human from taking the life/liberty of another human.

If you believe that life begins at conception, you believe ending that life at any point of the pregnancy is the act of killing another human. If you believe life begins at the 2nd trimester, you believe that abortions committed after that point is the act of killing another human being. If you believe it's the 3rd trimester, same story... at some point we all agree it's murder and expect government to do it's basic diligence and protect people from one another.

We all draw the line somewhere. Some when the baby is born, others in the third trimester, others in the 2nd, others when the heart begins to beat or a specific stage of neuro development, others at conception. People who are anti-abortion or pro-life simply believe that the beginning of life occurs at an earlier stage. Their position isn't any 'bigger government' than yours is.

2) You, like most people, over estimate the effects of any given election and draw conclusions which are patently ridiculous given not-to-recent history. If you were here 2 years ago, you would have seen people sining the death knell of the Democrat party after Republicans swept into power in record breaking numbers due largely to the tea party movement.

Where exactly do you think these people went? Do you think they disappeared?

The Democrats won because pure and simple they were more excited about their candidate than the Republicans were. They came out in greater numbers, and won pure and simple. If you try and draw major implications about future elections from this, you'll simply be making the same mistake that countless prognosticators have before you.

The truth is that the two-party system is here to stay... they'll keep providing us with a false choice for decades to come. The Republican party is far from dead, that much you can be quite sure of.


3) The U.S. population isn't 'pro-choice' anymore. I'm sorry, but this is actually increasingly a losing position for the Democrats. Over 70% of Americans now believe that Abortion should be outlawed all together or at least after a certain point of fetus development.

Originally Posted by skunk

Please use a capital L unless you are talking about anarchism. As far as I am aware, the Republican party has no "libertarian wing".

LOL, you think 'libertarian' = 'anarchism?'
The Republican party certainly does have a 'libertarian' wing... also known as 'Ron Paul Republicans', also known as 'classical liberals', also known as small government constitutionalists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

libertarianism is the group of political philosophies that advocates minimizing coercion and emphasizes freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with significantly less government compared to most present day societies.

Originally Posted by zioxide

Yes. I'm sick of it being called a "pro-life" argument. Enough semantics.. tell it like it is. Like you said, it's being against civil rights for all. Nobody should have the right to make that type of decision for anyone but themselves.

It's really cute to me that you are SICK of the "pro-life" term. Because people on the other side are really SICK of the 'pro-choice' term. What choice does the baby have, they say?

Tell me, let's see where your positions really lie... if a baby is in it's ninth month of development, it can survive completely on it's own outside the womb... and the mom decides to kill the baby (abortion, excuse me) is that simply her choice? A choice no one else should ever question or prevent her from making? It's her choice whether her baby lives or dies? That's a frightening worldview, if I do say so myself.

The problem with positions like yours is that their often so ridiculously ignorant of the other position. You don't understand the basic arguments of your opposition (see my first point in response to the OP above) and so you ignorantly label their position as anti-liberty or fascist in some way... at the very least you should learn to understand and respect the alternative view... it makes it easier for you to make a cogent point and be taken seriously that way.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

What choice does the baby have, they say?

What choice could a less than 3-month old fetus make?

[NickZac]

Technically opposing abortion and opposing gay marriage contradicts conservative ideology which says government should NOT interfere with the private citizen's life. And yes, I think it is costing them votes because they put so much emphasis on these issues that they drift away from other conservative points. I think this is because we are blurring the line between religion and government which is something the founding fathers of this country dreaded.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

Over 70% of Americans now believe that Abortion should be outlawed all together or at least after a certain point of fetus development.

Abortion law has always worked like that - unless the life of the mother is at risk.

[classicaliberal]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

What choice could a less than 3-month old fetus make?

Faulty argument. What choice can a 9 mo. Fetus make? How about a 2 mo. old baby? 1 year old baby?

The question where do YOU draw the line? When does the switch to murder happen for you?

[likemyorbs]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

The question where do YOU draw the line? When does the switch to murder happen for you?

As long as fetus is dependent on the mother to survive, it's fair game to abort.

[classicaliberal]

Originally Posted by likemyorbs

As long as fetus is dependent on the mother to survive, it's fair game to abort.

Ok. So, you would agree with a sliding scale, changing as modern medicine advances around fetal viability? So, today you'd support outlawing all abortions after sometime in the fifth month? In a few years maybe the fourth month?

Seem like a valid position... But for the record, you're "anti-abortion" after the fifth month.

[Scepticalscribe]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

The entire abortion debate boils down to one question. When exactly the baby/fetus becomes 'human life.'

.........

2) You, like most people, over estimate the effects of any given election and draw conclusions which are patently ridiculous given not-to-recent history. .......


The Democrats won because pure and simple they were more excited about their candidate than the Republicans were. They came out in greater numbers, and won pure and simple. If you try and draw major implications about future elections from this, you'll simply be making the same mistake that countless prognosticators have before you.




3) The U.S. population isn't 'pro-choice' anymore. I'm sorry, but this is actually increasingly a losing position for the Democrats.

It's really cute to me that you are SICK of the "pro-life" term. Because people on the other side are really SICK of the 'pro-choice' term. What choice does the baby have, they say?

Tell me, let's see where your positions really lie... if a baby is in it's ninth month of development, it can survive completely on it's own outside the womb... and the mom decides to kill the baby (abortion, excuse me) is that simply her choice? A choice no one else should ever question or prevent her from making? It's her choice whether her baby lives or dies? That's a frightening worldview, if I do say so myself.

The problem with positions like yours is that their often so ridiculously ignorant of the other position. You don't understand the basic arguments of your opposition (see my first point in response to the OP above) and so you ignorantly label their position as anti-liberty or fascist in some way... at the very least you should learn to understand and respect the alternative view... it makes it easier for you to make a cogent point and be taken seriously that way.

1) No. It does not, and to argue that it does is an attempt to curtail the parameters of debate. Of course, it boils down to more than that - the life of the mother (as recent events in Ireland demonstrate) ought also to be a factor taken into consideration.

2) The Democrats won this election because Republican rhetoric was so toxic and repellant that huge sections of the electorate were motivated to register a vote against them; thus, the insane remarks on rape proved something of a deal-breaker for women; immigration laws proved a deal-breaker for many Hispanics; homophobic remarks (and policies) were very much a deal-breaker for gays; and, the very fact that Obama was President along with the fact that serious attempts are being made to undermine the splendid legislative legacy of the civil rights era proved something of a deal-breaker for blacks. A coalition of the repelled voted against Republicans, people who did not want to see Mitt Romney President because were he to be elected, their basic rights as adult citizens would have been eroded.

3) I think the election has shown us that the US is pro-choice where rape is an issue. I have no doubt at all that witless and offensive remarks by some Republicans seeking office, contributed to their richly-deserved defeat.

And yes, 'pro-life' is a misleading term. Call it 'anti-abortion', which is more honest, because, in my experience, many who term themselves 'pro-life' may well have a view of life that begins at conception, but it is also one where any concern for 'life' ends at birth. They rarely have any consideration whatsoever for the life (or health) of the mother; a truly disturbing number of such right-wingers also favour the death penalty and see so apparent contradiction in so doing.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by bruinsrme

And yet you live in a state that voted down a persons right to die with dignity. Clearly it wasn't perfect but the hypocrisy of stating a woman should have the right to decide what to do with her body yet a terminally ill adult can't. Baffling to me. Unless of course the vote was split right down the male female population.

As a republican I wish the party would ease up on their abortion stance. I voted yes on question 2.

I voted yes on question 2 also and I wish it would have passed. I totally agree with you. Any type of personal decision like that should be up to the person and only the person it affects (with the consultation of their family and doctor obviously).

That vote was really close and I imagine we'll see it again on the ballot in a couple of years and it will probably pass.. at least I hope so.

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

It's really cute to me that you are SICK of the "pro-life" term. Because people on the other side are really SICK of the 'pro-choice' term. What choice does the baby have, they say?

Tell me, let's see where your positions really lie... if a baby is in it's ninth month of development, it can survive completely on it's own outside the womb... and the mom decides to kill the baby (abortion, excuse me) is that simply her choice? A choice no one else should ever question or prevent her from making? It's her choice whether her baby lives or dies? That's a frightening worldview, if I do say so myself.

The problem with positions like yours is that their often so ridiculously ignorant of the other position. You don't understand the basic arguments of your opposition (see my first point in response to the OP above) and so you ignorantly label their position as anti-liberty or fascist in some way... at the very least you should learn to understand and respect the alternative view... it makes it easier for you to make a cogent point and be taken seriously that way.

I'm sick of "pro-life" because if republicans were really "pro-life", they wouldn't be trying to deny people health care, continuing the barbaric death penalty, and generally not giving a **** about the welfare of the population once they pop out of a vagina. It's a crazy hypocritical argument that "pro-lifers" are so caught up on life for a group of cells that couldn't survive on their own but once the baby is born they're on their own.

You say "what choice does the baby have?" Well, first, it's not even a baby until it's born. And second, once that baby is born, the parents are the ones making the decisions for this kid until it turns 18. So, that's not a very valid argument.

It's pretty simple. Until the fetus can survive on it's own outside of the mother, it's not a baby, it's a fetus. I don't know very many people who advocate aborting a fetus in the third trimester when it would probably be able to survive on it's own (unless the mother's health is in jeopardy, but at this point you should be able to induce labor and deliver the baby so both lives are safe), but before the third trimester it's up to the woman. Ignore all of the religious crap that "life begins at conception" because scientifically something isn't alive until it can survive on it's own.

You're so quick to jump to conclusions and assume that I don't know or understand the position of the other side. Well, you know what happens when you assume. I know and understand the argument on both sides. But here's the deal. America is a free country (or at least is supposed to be). You are free to be against abortion. Nobody is forcing you, your wife, or anyone to get an abortion unless they want to. It's just like the medically-assisted suicide issue I was discussing above. What gives you the right to make a personal medical decision for someone else? It's up to them and them alone with the consultation of their family members and doctor, and frankly it's nobody else's damn business. At least, that's how it should be in a free country.

The Democrats won because pure and simple they were more excited about their candidate than the Republicans were. They came out in greater numbers, and won pure and simple. If you try and draw major implications about future elections from this, you'll simply be making the same mistake that countless prognosticators have before you.

I thought we heard for months that "the republicans were fired up and were going to turn out in droves to vote against Obama"???

You need to take your blinders off in this respect and realize the demographics of this country are changing. The Democrats won because Romney didn't give a damn about nearly half the country. If you think the Republicans will be able to win another national election EVER by relying on the white male vote, you're sadly mistaken. If the Republicans don't SERIOUSLY change the entire core of their party, they are going to continue to see their base get smaller, and you can bet you will see states like Arizona and Texas trending towards the blue column in 2020 or 2024.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

Tell me, let's see where your positions really lie... if a baby is in it's ninth month of development, it can survive completely on it's own outside the womb... and the mom decides to kill the baby (abortion, excuse me) is that simply her choice? A choice no one else should ever question or prevent her from making? It's her choice whether her baby lives or dies? That's a frightening worldview, if I do say so myself.

There are a number of restrictions including statewide when it comes to late term abortions under normal circumstances when the health of the mother isn't at risk and the fetus is not expected to be stillborn or anything of that sort. The chart you referenced there has a drop at the beginning right after the time a specific method of late term abortion was rebranded as "partial birth abortion". It was over something that was already an uncommon procedure at the time. The concept makes me uncomfortable too, but they examined it in a profoundly silly way attacking the procedure rather than the circumstances under which they found it to be inappropriate.

[chown33]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

... People on both sides of the political aisle agree that one human ending another human life is murder.

No, not "murder":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide

Homicide (Latin: homicidium, Latin: homo human being + Latin: caedere to cut, kill) is the act of a human killing another human. Murder, for example, is a type of homicide. It can also describe a person who has committed such an act, though this use is rare in modern English. Homicide is not always a punishable act under criminal law, and is different from murder from a formal legal point of view. [Underline added]

Murder is a specific kind of criminal homicide (there are others). There are also various kinds of non-criminal homicide: see the linked articles on Non-criminal homicide (sub-topics: Justifiable homicide, Medicide, etc.).

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

Faulty argument. What choice can a 9 mo. Fetus make? How about a 2 mo. old baby? 1 year old baby?

The question where do YOU draw the line? When does the switch to murder happen for you?

How can it be a faulty argument when YOU began it with the question, "What choice does the baby have, they say?

If it's a faulty argument, then please blame yourself for beginning it with that question.

If you wanted to discuss where I draw the line, then why even bring up the question of the fetuses choice?

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

So, today you'd support outlawing all abortions after sometime in the fifth month? In a few years maybe the fourth month?

That's how abortion rules have typically worked.

[bruinsrme]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

The difference is that you need a lot of safeguards in place for terminally ill adults to avoid exploitation by their families.

Did you read the proposal?

[classicaliberal]

Originally Posted by zioxide

I'm sick of "pro-life" because if republicans were really "pro-life", they wouldn't be trying to deny people health care, continuing the barbaric death penalty, and generally not giving a **** about the welfare of the population once they pop out of a vagina. It's a crazy hypocritical argument that "pro-lifers" are so caught up on life for a group of cells that couldn't survive on their own but once the baby is born they're on their own.

See, again, you're using your own political perspective to try and control language. Your opponents think universal healthcare will lead to less people getting care in teh long run, not more. They believe the market can provide better access and care than government can. They also support the death penalty largely because they believe it serves to protect against heinous crimes in the future, also their views on war suggest that over the long term they think that making war, installing capitalism/democracy, etc. will lead to less killing in the future.

I'm not saying these ideas are right, in fact I disagree with several of them, but to suggest that your opponents care less about life than you is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by zioxide

You say "what choice does the baby have?" Well, first, it's not even a baby until it's born. And second, once that baby is born, the parents are the ones making the decisions for this kid until it turns 18. So, that's not a very valid argument.

Why won't you tell everyone your position on when abortion becomes murder (or homicide, who cares?) That's the biggest problem with those on the left... they haven't even thought through the position most of the time... they bash conservatives, calling them bible thumpers or whatever else (even if their position has absolutely nothing to do with religion like in my case) and they haven't even thought through their own views on where the line is drawn. So, where do you draw it? From the way you talked about fetuses not being babies until they're born, it starts to seem pretty likely that you'd be a proponent of allowing a mother to abort her fetus right up and until the birth takes place? Maybe they could do it even during the birth itself? As long as it's in the womb it's fair game?

Hopefully not, hopefully this isn't your position... but I do think you shoudl have to take a position.

Originally Posted by zioxide

You're so quick to jump to conclusions and assume that I don't know or understand the position of the other side. Well, you know what happens when you assume. I know and understand the argument on both sides. But here's the deal. America is a free country (or at least is supposed to be). You are free to be against abortion. Nobody is forcing you, your wife, or anyone to get an abortion unless they want to. It's just like the medically-assisted suicide issue I was discussing above. What gives you the right to make a personal medical decision for someone else? It's up to them and them alone with the consultation of their family members and doctor, and frankly it's nobody else's damn business. At least, that's how it should be in a free country.

Jesus... you really don't get it, do you? If you did... you wouldn't have just said that.
If you can find someone on these forums more focused on personal liberty than I am, be my guest.
Go back and read my original post... like I said, it all depends on when life begins. If a fetus is aborted after life begins, that would be homicide, not just an abortion. So you can't just say "It's a free country." when lives are at stake. The very fact that you just said that, makes it pretty clear to me that you in fact do not understand your opponents on this issue.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

How can it be a faulty argument when YOU began it with the question, "What choice does the baby have, they say?

If it's a faulty argument, then please blame yourself for beginning it with that question.

If you wanted to discuss where I draw the line, then why even bring up the question of the fetuses choice?

The point demonstrates how both sides strongly dislike the language used by their opponents. As is the case with any issue, both sides attempt to control the language of the debate. This is why Democrats tend to call them 'rich people' and Republicans tend to call them 'job creators.' Neither of the two parties like the wording the other uses.

I think you can make a strong case that 'pro-life' is a poor description based on your worldview... I think they can make a good case that 'pro-choice' is a poor description based on their worldview since their whole philosophy is that an innocent is being killed, and that the government should protect their right to life.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

That's how abortion rules have typically worked.

So do you or do you not support outlawing abortions (with the exception in regards to the life of the mother) after the 5th month or the modern equivalent of fetus viability? So you're anti-abortion... just not anti all abortion. You're not pro choice, just pro-choice sometimes, if it's early on in the pregnancy... after that the mother has no more choice? Just so we're clear.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

The point demonstrates how both sides strongly dislike the language used by their opponents. As is the case with any issue, both sides attempt to control the language of the debate. This is why Democrats tend to call them 'rich people' and Republicans tend to call them 'job creators.' Neither of the two parties like the wording the other uses.

I think you can make a strong case that 'pro-life' is a poor description based on your worldview... I think they can make a good case that 'pro-choice' is a poor description based on their worldview since their whole philosophy is that an innocent is being killed, and that the government should protect their right to life.

And speaking to your point about language, I have to applaud your using the phrase. "an innocent is being killed," instead of "a fetus is being killed."

That's a good illustration of the point you were making.

Well done.

[likemyorbs]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

Ok. So, you would agree with a sliding scale, changing as modern medicine advances around fetal viability? So, today you'd support outlawing all abortions after sometime in the fifth month? In a few years maybe the fourth month?

Seem like a valid position... But for the record, you're "anti-abortion" after the fifth month.

Basically. By that time the nervous system is developed. If its after the fifth month it should really only be done if it threatens the mother's life. Makes the most sense to me when taking current science into consideration. I would support the sliding scale, but if the mothers life is in danger then the scale can slide right down the toilet.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

2) You, like most people, over estimate the effects of any given election and draw conclusions which are patently ridiculous given not-to-recent history. If you were here 2 years ago, you would have seen people sining the death knell of the Democrat party after Republicans swept into power in record breaking numbers due largely to the tea party movement.

Where exactly do you think these people went? Do you think they disappeared?

And you UNDER estimate the effect of an election. Elections have consequences. Even the Republicans who just lost will tell you that. As for the last election, off cycle elections aren't as telling as the 4 year Presidential ones. With the Dem already in the White House, many Dems stayed home at the 2 year mark. The opposite has happened when there is a Republican in the White House. Which is why more often then not, the mid-term elections go more towards the opposite party from the President. Because people stay home. But they don't in Presidential elections as much. The Republican party has lost the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 Presidential races. If you don't see that as a trend, then I don't know what to tell you.

The Democrats won because pure and simple they were more excited about their candidate than the Republicans were. They came out in greater numbers, and won pure and simple. If you try and draw major implications about future elections from this, you'll simply be making the same mistake that countless prognosticators have before you.

So you think changing demographics has NOTHING to do with it? If so, I say you are wrong.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

Why won't you tell everyone your position on when abortion becomes murder (or homicide, who cares?) That's the biggest problem with those on the left... they haven't even thought through the position most of the time... they bash conservatives, calling them bible thumpers or whatever else (even if their position has absolutely nothing to do with religion like in my case) and they haven't even thought through their own views on where the line is drawn. So, where do you draw it? From the way you talked about fetuses not being babies until they're born, it starts to seem pretty likely that you'd be a proponent of allowing a mother to abort her fetus right up and until the birth takes place? Maybe they could do it even during the birth itself? As long as it's in the womb it's fair game?

Nice job reading my post.

Originally Posted by zioxide

It's pretty simple. Until the fetus can survive on it's own outside of the mother, it's not a baby, it's a fetus. I don't know very many people who advocate aborting a fetus in the third trimester when it would probably be able to survive on it's own (unless the mother's health is in jeopardy, but at this point you should be able to induce labor and deliver the baby so both lives are safe), but before the third trimester it's up to the woman. Ignore all of the religious crap that "life begins at conception" because scientifically something isn't alive until it can survive on it's own.

[PracticalMac]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

Wrong on three major accounts:

1) Anti-Abortion is not a big government position. Well, it can be, but usually isn't.

Good arguments, but a fundamental failure on this point.

Analogies are never ideal, and these are far from it, but are relevant examples.

Drug Enforcement: Grown to be a huge, inflexible, powerful agency.

TSA: Powerful agency that has proven time and time again to easily fail in its duties, and painfully slow to adapt to changing threats (however, after 10 years, has improved in many areas).

If Abortion is a crime, underground clinics will pop up, and you will have the P.L.E.A. pop up to hunt for and nab illegal abortion clinics.
Even docs that do abortion for danger to mother reasons could also be under scrutiny. Then you have Abortion-Tourism, which DOES exist today, and efforts by government to monitor people going over seas.

I cannot see how this cannot become a big-gov effort and expense given how other programs ballooned to huge bureaucracies.

[NickZac]

^What he said about abortion tourism is completely true and embedded in fact. I am assuming that it is common knowledge as is other types of "medical tourism", but the point of "abortion tourism" is a real one.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

...Anti-Abortion is not a big government position.[/B] Well, it can be, but usually isn't. This is a myth perpetrated by leftist partisans. Here's why...

...The entire abortion debate boils down to one question. When exactly the baby/fetus becomes 'human life.' People on both sides of the political aisle agree that one human ending another human life is murder. Everyone pretty much believes in preventing one human from taking the life/liberty of another human.

I think this is precisely the problem. Abortion is a messy, complex issue that can't be boiled down to a simple point. First, there's a vast granularity of legal and ethical issues that shift as the fetus develops. The first seven weeks can't legally or socially be considered to have the same legal consequences as a fully-gestated infant.

Moreover, this ignores the complicated reality of the mother's health, which has significant consequences. The recent death of Savita Halappanavar is a great example of this. By abandoning the ethical question inherent in patient care, her doctors killed her.

So, if we don't believe in "big government" than we acknowledge that the doctor and patient are the best agents to make decisions about the care of a pregnancy rather than some larger entity that uses rule-making, rather than ethical guidelines, to make decisions.

...We all draw the line somewhere.

Sure, but drawing the line at "viability" is a line with medical meaning.

...2) You, like most people, over estimate the effects of any given election [/B]and draw conclusions which are patently ridiculous given not-to-recent history.

I agree. The meaning of each election is overwrought, however, I think the trend line may make it difficult for Republicans to keep winning general elections without some ideological shifting.

...The Democrats won because pure and simple they were more excited about their candidate than the Republicans were. They came out in greater numbers, and won pure and simple.

Isn't that how the game is played? The Obama team managed to get another percent out of the 18-29 demographic, for example, but doesn't that illustrate something about the American electorate's feelings? Romney's "let them eat cake" ideology just didn't carry the day.

...3) The U.S. population isn't 'pro-choice' anymore.[/B] I'm sorry, but this is actually increasingly a losing position for the Democrats. Over 70% of Americans now believe that Abortion should be outlawed all together or at least after a certain point of fetus development....

The trend is surprisingly steady. Except for a big shift in 1993, Americans want abortion to be "legal under certain circumstances" and are neither for or against abortion entirely. According to Gallup, more Americans think abortion is
"morally wrong" and they want "more restrictions" such as: 24-hour waiting period, parental consent for women under 18, a ban on "partial birth abortions."

However, Americans also believe strongly that when the women's life or mental health is endangered abortion should be legal and they're split on whether or not abortion should be legal in the case of physical or mental impairment.

I could go on, but the polling from Gallup shows that Americans have complex feelings about abortion.