Well I think his underlying point is that abortion of any kind is wrong and should be illegal. Maybe some rare exceptions like risk to mom's life or rape or something. Anyway I'm just guessing on his behalf and that's not fair.
i find it fascinating that people (the same persons) can affirm both the ideas that abortion is wrong and that it should be legal to abort fetuses (why isn't the plural feti?) resulting from rape.
life begins at conception, but the sins of the father are visited upon sons until the second trimester?
Well, this is getting a little off topic, but you're correct, from a moral standpoint, a child of rape is certainly no more deserving of death by dismemberment than a child of consensual sex. While morally inconsistent, most people who adopt the "rape exception" are simply trying to be pragmatic, and reach a compromise that would at least eliminate the vast majority of abortions. For example, while life does begin at conception, that's as close to a fact as you can get, I believe that killing a viable baby at 30 weeks is much more horrifying than killing a zygote or fetus in the first 12 weeks. From a pragmatic standpoint, I'd be happy to eliminate all but very early abortions, though there is little moral difference. Others would disagree.
And back to the gun issue, my point isn't that we shouldn't have tighter gun control measures because criminals will break them anyway - my point is that not only will the laws be ineffective, they'll impose yet more pain in the ass red tape for law abiding citizens. If the only downside of tighter regulations is that they were unlikely to be effective, you might as well pass the laws, but that's not the only downside here, and that's where I have the problem.
I'm still waiting for an example of a crime that would have been prevented with more extensive background checks. Show me the advantage that justifies imposing another inconvenience on law abiding citizens.
