So the position is not really consistent because, in that narrow exception that he makes, motivation is important.

And, if you are equating a fetus with a baby, whether the mother’s life is in danger or not, would be moot.

Would he find it acceptable to sacrifice a newborn for it’s mother? I don’t think so. Again, not consistent.

***ETA*** just read your post BusyPea, it was posted while I was writing mine. And you are absolutely correct. I was going to delete mine, but deleting posts is pretty cowardly, so I won’t.

I didn’t think my response through enough, and stopped the thought process to soon, as did the guy in the video. The wishes of the woman certainly do need to be taken into account when drafting the law.

His end goal is to reduce/eliminate abortions because he believes they are taking innocent lives. OK, fine. But if he thinks that women who choose abortion now will stop choosing abortion just because the law changes, he is completely short sighted. They may go to a different state. They may try to induce abortion themselves. They may go to illegal providers. Actual incidence of abortion would not dramatically drop if the ONLY change that was made was a legislative change.

So, to me, it follows that if he is really invested in protecting what he views as innocent lives, he’s going to consider and advocate a multi-pronged approach. Look at the reasons why women choose abortion to begin with and work on solving those in tandem with changing laws. THAT might actually reduce incidence of abortion and protect what he veiws as innocent lives, instead of just shifting how/where abortions happen.

Never having considered the bigger picture shows he lacks intellectual rigor and problem solving ability. He only sees one solution to a problem that has many disparate causes. He’s foolish.

exactly, and it is that sort of absolutist stance and lack of moral relativism that make extremist muslims and christians indistinguishable. bravo sir, you are a nut job.

Free and easy access to birth control.