The problem with getting anti-abortion people enthused about reducing rather than restricting abortions is that it sounds like Cheney's defense of waterboarding. We only waterboarded three people - so what is the big fuss about.

Even if no one was tortured I would be disturbed that we had lawyers claiming it was legal. If someone believes abortion is murder then they also see the laws allowing it as a blot on America.

A few decades ago the issue was briefly framed as "Do you support compulsory pregnancy?" Instead of arguing whether the embryo/fetus is human it focuses on determining what are the obligations of the pregnant woman to the fetus. It puts the argument into contexts where we do agree that decisions are difficult such as life support for the terminally ill. It allows for cases where we do not want laws to restrict actions even though we might regard the actions as terrible. We honor people who give kidneys to aid others but we do not pass laws saying that they must.

How did we lose that question?

I would write more but It is time to tube-feed my dying husband.

How did we lose that question?

Because the Constitution doesn't support your beliefs?

Or perhaps the SCOTUS doesn't, which is not precisely the same thing.

businessanalyst:

Or perhaps the SCOTUS doesn't, which is not precisely the same thing.

OK Show us where in The US Constitution the State gains the right to compell carrying to term against the host woman's will?