You are right, it is not all Republicans, there are plenty moderate pro-choice Republicans (and even moderate pro-life Democrats) alienated by the GOP’s stance on abortion. Murdouck, Akin and soon Iowa’s Steve Kyle are just more examples of how the Republican stance on abortion is a losing issue for them. Even more ‘mainstream’ Republicans want Steve Kyleout of the running for his Akin-like views on abortion. He will win the Republican primary, but lose in the general election because his views on abortion are too extreme.
As for Lance’s position, I have become wise tohis debate tactics.
But, I will play one last time. So, for the span of this post I will grant a fetus morally and ethically equivalent to myself – affording a fetus every right and privilege I have, but not one iota more:
May I consume my mother’s flesh against her will?
May I inject my mother with mind altering hormones against her will?
May I excrete my biological wastes into my mother’s bloodstream against her will?
May I leech calcium from my mother’s bones to strengthen my own against her will?
May I implant myself into my mother’s body against her will?
May I re-arrange my mother’s internal organs against her will?
Do I have any claim on or authority over my mother’s biological processes?
NO.
Not even if my life hangs in the balance. Her consent is required. Nobody has the rights fetal personhood proponents are trying to bestow on a fertilized egg. They need to make the case for granting fetuses super-human rights. Even a one minute old newborn infant’s ‘right to life’ could not justify forcing the mother to donate a section of her liver in order for the baby to live. Why is her consent required after birth, but not before?
If I committed a negligent act causing another person bodily harm and they required an organ/tissue donation to live, I could not be mandated to provide that donation (or be put in an organ donation chain if I was not a match).
We allow thousands of born people on transplant wait lists to die every year rather than mandate organ/tissue donation without consent. Fetal supremacy is not acceptable. Equality is the upper limit. You must first give a right to the born before you grant it to the unborn. If a person’s ‘right to life’ trumps bodily autonomy, then EVERY LIFE justifies violation, not just fetal life. EVERY person may be violated, not just pregnant women. Even a corpse’s body autonomy is afforded more respect than some afford pregnant women, as a corpse’s organs and tissues can only be donated by consent. They are dead, they aren’t even using their organs and tissues! Yet, we can not use their body parts - even if someone’s life hangs in the balance - their consent is required.
I am quite familiar with Thompson’s argument in A Defense of Abortion, but her argument hinges on enacting a ‘Minimally Decent Samaritan Law’ which applies to ALL people – which would entail mandating organ/tissue/body donations of ALL people, not just pregnant women. Let’s keep in mind Thompson wrote her essay in 1971 and is based on medical technology of the time.
TL;DR
Framing the abortion debate in third trimester abortions is intellectually dishonest. No healthy pregnant woman aborts a healthy fetus in the third trimester, it is illegaloutside of extenuating tragic circumstances. A pregnant woman just doesn’t wake up all of sudden in her 24th week and decides she sick of the puffy ankles and wants out. Women who have suffered pregnancy into the third trimester are generally invested in having a baby at the end of it. Forcing women to carry a non-viable pregnancies to term with unnecessary government interference during a time of great personal tragedy is bound to turn the most ardent ‘pro-lifers’ against the GOP platform. Particularly when none of their claims stand up against scientific scrutiny and completely flies in the face of real world data and experience.