Man, Susan, you just refuse to be open. Sophistry? Here’s the definition: “a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.” I don’t know how my comment above fits that definition. This is a difficult issue, and people like you who treat it like it’s all black and white, that there is a readily discernible right or wrong position, or that it is a problem with an easy solution just make it harder for those of us trying to be realistic about it. But you’ll probably just say “Nope. Sorry. The Truth is The Truth.” Which is true. I’m just not convinced this has as much to do with “Truth” as you seem to think.

“It ain’t complicated. There are only 2 sides: either in favor of it, or against it.” It’s a very big problem to see things in terms of contrasts. You’re committing a logical fallacy here, Susan. The false dichotomy. Unfortunately it undermines your other point, which I think is valid and would be better served if removed from this rigid way of thinking.

“Well, how about wanting to live, but being forced instead to die?” Agreed. What does this have to do with two sides?

“Are they to gladly let go of life, because ‘the time’s not right’ ‘I’m too young’ ‘it wasn’t my fault’?” No. Someone SHOULD stand up for them. But that doesn’t mean the choice is yours, nor is it easy.

“The unborn are our neighbors. Trouble is, they’re silent and unseen. That not only makes them vulnerable; it makes them fair game.” Exactly. So we should go about doing the work of helping people not get into the situation. Once they do, however, we should try to care for them and be compassionate. The mother, the father, all those who are alive, they are going through this as well. We should not boil this down to either/or; rather, we should try to be as compassionate as possible, while staying away from making distinctions. They only divide, while not solving the problem.

I’m trying to say both sides really agree there’s a problem. We disagree on how to solve it. Either side pointing at the other saying they’re wrong does the unborn baby, the mother, the father, and anyone else involved no good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

The article states that the abortion rate is the same around the world for countries where it is legal and countries where it is illegal. THE SAME. The only difference is the degree of danger involved for the mother seeking the abortion. So, tell me again, exactly what would repealing RvW do for abortion in this country, other than make evangelicals feel good about themselves for winning part of the culture war?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/John_McCain_Abortion.htm#06n-NRLC

How can you all be so convinced that McCain is going to get RvW overturned when he just said that he wouldn’t have a litmus test? Abortion is a moral problem. It does not have a political solution. Blindly voting on a single issue to the exclusion of all else results in, well, the last 8 years of utterly failed leadership. If evangelicals are so committed to being pro-life, where is the outrage over the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians that have been killed in an unjust war propagated by the man they overwhelmingly voted for twice? Being pro-life means being pro-life at all times for all things. Where is the consistency? And why are so many evangelicals pro-death penalty? How is that not a clear contradiction? How about birth control, contraception, IUDs, morning after pills? Just how pro-life are you?

Where is the evangelical commitment to eliminating poverty in the United States, a major factor in minorities having abortions, and one which the Democratic platform is far more assertive on than the Republican? And have evangelicals actually thought through the implications of RvW being overturned? Are you willing to pay more taxes to fund more social services because of the explosion in children born to underage and unwed mothers? The return of back-alley abortions with coat hangers? So many evangelicals vote Republican based solely on abortion with zero thought to how the rest of the Republican platform policies do nothing to alleviate, or worsen, the root causes of abortions. Just making abortions illegal is not going to make them go away. It just drives them underground, and makes them far more dangerous to the mother, particularly poor mothers who can’t afford a trip to Canada.

There’s a lot of heat and light when evangelical Christians talk about abortion, but I have yet to see a clear and substantive consistency on the issue. Perhaps evangelicals should look to the Catholics for guidance. John Paul II’s encyclical on contraception is far more consistently pro-life than anything I’ve seen from evangelical leadership.