Redstate has a thread about abortion. They are concerned about how they can balance their anti choice stand with the realities of the electorate. A fair amount of superstition occurs in these kinds of debates and at that site in particular. So I made what I thought was a rather mild response to a posters argument that he should be able to rely on federal power to protect all life. My argument went something like this:
"No. The sperm and egg are both alive. Life begins prior to conception and life is fundamentally a process. A zygote is a single cell fertilized egg. It is the beginning stage of an embryo. But a sperm is not an embryo. An embryo is not a fetus, A fetus is not a toddler and a toddler is not an adult.
You don't need government help to preserve the right to life. Simply refrain from recreational sexual activity and the use of contraception, and ensure all sexual activity has the potential of growing life to maturity. This is your choice to be totally prolife but one couldn't impose such a choice by law. That is why conservatives such as Barry Goldwater has been in favor of a woman's right to choose."
I had hoped we could evolve such discussion to the concepts of rights of citizens under the 14th amendment, the striking down of contraception bans in Griswald, the evolution from Griswald to Roe, the separation of religious argument from science argument, and the Pope's new statements about not obsessing about reproductive rights. But instead, they banned me from participating in the thread.
I really thought my response was fairly mild. At any rate, the guy that wrote the diary is named Streiff. He is a front page contributor.
I suppose it is good that the other side operates in such a vacuum. It means they will shrink their base as they skew ever more towards extreme positions and extreme candidates. So be it.