Abortion, with some limits, was federally protected.
WAS being the operative word.
It was not entrenched in our culture , was not part of the Constitution, had no legislative background, and, of course, resulted in the destruction of a life or potential life.
This decision will result in the destruction of lives.
Never seemed to bother you the last 50 years.
a) Our poor record on both the lives of new borns and the lives of their mothers is a thing I have post\ed about consistently and to which you have never responded.
b) Way to deliberately misunderstand my post.
c) As I have said in the last 24 hours, I'm talking about the women who will die as a result of this ruling. So, while the potential existed should the law change, no, I was not bothered by deaths that did not exist.
How do you account for aborted lives?
Do you think an egg is a chicken?
Life starts at birth, by almost every law we have ever had.
It starts with the first breath according to Judaism just as it ends with the last.
But I understand your point, Ward. As I have noted before, to you and your party, "Right to Life" ends at birth.
Abortions during the last trimester are both very rare and done in extremis, not as a matter of whim.
But the day that you and your party are prepared (a) to allow fetuses to be grown outside the egg-donor's body, and/or (b) to cover full costs of both the pre-natal period and childhood for family (mother and child, at least), and (c) to make the world a ton safer for said children, we can have an
actual discussion about how best to meet the needs of the
potential life and the mother.
Add to that free birth control, which has been proven repeatedly to be the single most effective method of birth control, and you will begin to have a consistent policy proposal.
Until then, it is just an exercise in controlling the women.
Poll
