Regardless of if they grow up to be Democrat or Republican, it's wrong to kill them via abortion. A lack or abundance of birth control doesn't make abortion any less of a barbaric intrusion of human rights.
Except, of course, the pro-abortion lobby and its supportersThat's a very loaded statement.
Nobody's arguing to "kill" anybody.. :roll::roll::roll:
Except, of course, the pro-abortion lobby and its supporters
Webster's first defition for "kill" is "to deprive of life" or "to cause the death of". Is there a more appropriate word for the abortion an unborn child?Well. Only Post #4 and already we've devolved into the depths.
Point is simply that two generations of legalized abortion probably has resulted in fewer liberals than there would be otherwise. I hesitate to call it a "silver lining" but it the shoe fits...What?
Webster's first defition for "kill" is "to deprive of life" or "to cause the death of". Is there a more appropriate word for the abortion an unborn child?
Your definition of "unborn child" must differ radically from mine then.Killing an unborn child isn't what 99% of abortions do.
Your definition of "unborn child" must differ radically from mine then.
As you see it, at what point does a fetus become a baby?Obviously.
Does less birth control pill availability/coverage = more Democrat voters in future?
Your definition of "unborn child" must differ radically from mine then.
As you see it, at what point does a fetus become a baby?
Webster's first defition for "kill" is "to deprive of life" or "to cause the death of". Is there a more appropriate word for the abortion an unborn child?
Understood and I appreciate your honest about the arbitrariness of the cut-off line. I hope you can understand why someone who believes human life begins earlier would look at it differently. I have to say, however, that limiting abortion to a four-month window would be substantially easier to "live with" than the current tangle. One thing I certainly oppose is a 5-4 majority of unelected judges making that arbitrary decision, rather than having such a line drawn by a deliberative body of duly elected representatives (i.e. a legislature). IIRC when Roe v. Wade was decided, abortion was only legal in 5 of the 50 states.Well, since I don't believe in killing babies, I'd say four months. I wish abortions were limited by that. It's arbitrary. It's not scientifically correct. But that's what my heart tells me.
Understood and I appreciate your honest about the arbitrariness of the cut-off line. I hope you can understand why someone who believes human life begins earlier would look at it differently. I have to say, however, that limiting abortion to a four-month window would be substantially easier to "live with" than the current tangle. One thing I certainly oppose is a 5-4 majority of unelected judges making that arbitrary decision, rather than having such a line drawn by a deliberative body of duly elected representatives (i.e. a legislature). IIRC when Roe v. Wade was decided, abortion was only legal in 5 of the 50 states.
Understood and I appreciate your honest about the arbitrariness of the cut-off line. I hope you can understand why someone who believes human life begins earlier would look at it differently. I have to say, however, that limiting abortion to a four-month window would be substantially easier to "live with" than the current tangle. One thing I certainly oppose is a 5-4 majority of unelected judges making that arbitrary decision, rather than having such a line drawn by a deliberative body of duly elected representatives (i.e. a legislature). IIRC when Roe v. Wade was decided, abortion was only legal in 5 of the 50 states.