So, the pro-abortion group has spent about 4 times what the pro-life group
has.That tells you a lot about the perversely skewed priorities of
our evermore degenerate society.
Chances of a lawsuit by the pro-baby killing crowd if the ban passes: 100%Chances of a New Mexico judge finding a "constitutional" right
to on-demand late-term abortion: 99.9%But, hey, it was a thought.
(And you thought the Albuquerque of "Breaking Bad" was a fictional
Abortion is the sin and evil of our generation. Someday there is going to be a
lot explaining to do.
I believe the original Supreme Court ruling itself had a messuring factor stated
within the ruling. Abortions were said to be legal only until the baby could be
viable outside of the mothers womb. Thanks to modern medicine, that viability
has come sooner in the pregantcy than ever before. Beyond that, our
society should protect the sanctity of human life. I am not in favor of
"person hood laws" where a fertilized egg immediately is deemed a
"person" but life is so precious that I believe it should be protected
for the far majority of the normal pregancy period. I think 20 weeks is a very
reasonable timeframe to stop abortions.
Pro-life; what an oxymoron. Once the fetus exits the womb, it's all on
it's own baby!
You cannot be 'pro-life'… and vote to cut food
stamps for children.
You cannot be pro-choice and not give people the choice whether they buy medical
insurance or not, or whether they can choose to be religious or not, or how big
a soft drink they can drink, or whether they feed the poor at a church or
through the food bank or through food stamps, or what kind of light bulbs they
use, etc, etc, etc.
You cannot be 'pro-life'… and send 4,000 Americans
to die in Iraq.
@Badgerbadger – “You cannot be pro-choice and not give people the
choice whether they… etc, etc, etc.”Thank you for
pointing out how hypocritical we can all be especially when our views have a
moral flavor or worse, when we feel God is on our side.We need to
follow the lead of (most of) Europe on this issue and call a truce by deciding
on a firm cut off after which abortion is illegal. As a pro-choice supporter I
am willing to concede that abortion after 20 weeks (except when life of the
mother is at stake) is abhorrent. Question is will the pro-life
side ever concede that terminating a pregnancy prior to some point of fetal
development (somewhere between 8-20 weeks?) in no way rises to the level of baby
killing? I suspect not, which is why we’re stuck with this
political football for the foreseeable future – it is simply
Newton’s Third Law of Motion playing out in the public sphere.
I'm for it. Why not? If we can't put a line somewhere before a
child's birth, then what about the birthing process itself actually grants
a child any sort of right to life? If a termination at 21 weeks is acceptable,
why not 28? Then if 28, why not 36? If 26, what difference does the baby
coming out of the womb make to the moments just beforehand?