I understand given that the bill is only to protect children where the mothers wanted abortion but the baby was born anyway. ... The cases where this applies are so infinitesimally small that it is likely the bill is more about politics than about saving lives.
Even so, a life is a life, and I see no downside or unjust imposition.
That is something usually stated by someone who believes that some mythical picosecond that sits between "conception" and "not yet conception" is the line between legal and illegal, moral and immoral, nothing and "person".
It may well be at some later picosecond. All I know is that the moment of conception--the genesis of the first living cell--is the earliest picosecond "person"
could begin, and I'm not in the habit of shooting bullets into black boxes that may or may not contain human beings.
It's inhumane. Do you understand what inhumane means? Doesn't your generation have any empathy gene just like Trump doesn't? Don't you have even a shred of human decency in your body that you can ignore the raping of small kids who don't even speak English and all that after the forced pulling them out of the arms of their mothers? You really don't think that's bad? What about all these thousands of children being trapped in detention centers in the desert that will never see their mother, father or brothers and sisters ever again because "oops" the U.S. government can't find them.
If there's murder and rape of children taking place in detention centers, I agree it's unconscionable. Moreover, it violates our laws. It's a profound evil, I agree.
It doesn't justify abortion, and it isn't the topic of discussion in this thread.
When an abortion is performed it is not a fully formed human being, it's at a stage of development, approximated 20 weeks in which the fetus cannot feel pain and has no emotions.
Irrelevant. A man in a medically-induced coma can't feel pain and has no emotions. He's nevertheless a human being (regardless of what the law says, has said, or may say in future) with human potential, and to take his life without just cause is a profound moral wrong.
While we live in a society where elected officials contend to separate legal from illegal, human from inhuman, such heuristics are a false and (fortunately) temporary thing. There remains the Great Law, the only law that ultimately matters, no less immutable than the law of gravity, which proscribes in part that
i) the child in the womb (as we all once were) is a human being, and
ii) that the slaying of a human being having committed no offense worthy of death is
sine qua non unlawful, i.e. murder.
If your sole concern is about preventing emotional and physical suffering of the child (or fetus, if you prefer) being killed, you're missing the point.
Suppose a stray bullet from a drive-by shooting hits you in the back of the head, killing you instantly. You suffer no pain. You suffer no emotional distress. At no point do you even become aware anything is amiss (at least in this life). It wasn't the intent of the shooter to cause you harm. Ergo was no moral wrong committed? Does your life and your unlived potential have no inherent value?
Surely you have value. You are a human being. The fact that you can be killed without pain, distress, or awareness is of no consequence.