I'm not going to rehash the eternal abortion debate here.
What I'm saying is that if you claim to love babies so much and feel that every fetus should be brought to term regardless of whether or not their parents want them or can afford to care for them, then you'd better have a plan in place for taking care of those babies if and when their parents either neglect to do so or are unable to do so.
And yes, that plan is inevitably going to involve gobs of money being sucked up by a social welfare system.
That doesn't sound appealing? Then stop trying to force a bunch of women who are unwilling or unable to care for their children to have them.
It's common sense. Somebody is going to end up having to take care of these kids, and that somebody is going to be you and me, in the form of our tax dollars.
No law will stop one single abortion. Anyone who wants one will always go where it is available.
Are you not aware that there are more parents wanting to adopt, then there are babies available to adopt? That talking point really has no air left in it.
Have you ever stopped to actually contemplate what you advocate?... "That doesn't sound appealing? Then stop trying to force a bunch of women who are unwilling or unable to care for their children to have them." So, your solution is the protection of a speciously appointed right to serial killing, to relieve men and women from the responsibilities of their sexual activities? You have a typically democrat perspective on the issue of killing for the convenience of those who desire license. Sad really, that an apparently adult American is so blatant in support of serialized killing of alive human beings in order to achieve the 'enlightened society' of secularization. What is the human species coming to? Ghastly arrogance on your part, rommy, to advocate the wholesale killing and imply we of the pro-life crowd don't do anything for the babies born into this nation under less thanyour ideal conditions. [By the way, fool, you're being addressed by one who does do something about this tragedy and who has a little one living and blessing his home who would have been your candidate for extermination. You have rancid egg on your smarmy face.]
What you are saying is that you only believe that the protection of the right not to be killed by government and society can be limited by what you consider wanted and worthwhile. While those of us who are prolife would protect all humans, and all our offspring, without discrimination based on our own personal beliefs, circumstances or finances.
Look in your local phone book or Google for "Crisis Pregnancy Center" or "Abortion Alternatives" in your town.
We are already doing what you talk about. With our own money and without the threat of guns, prison, and confiscation of property that comes with tax-funded programs.
What if all of the money that your side spends on Emily's List, Jane's Due Process (in Texas, just a way to circumvent parental involvement in their minor daughter's lives), and all the money funneled to Planned Parenthood for abortion referrals and the abortions themselves could be spent on nurturing women and children?
What if the 40 million to 45 million children who have been aborted in this nation were now working and paying into Social Security, Medicare and Income Tax?
What if the minds and hearts that have been wasted by the deaths of abortion could have been put to work on the problems of this nation?
What if we did not teach our children, our young men and women that human beings are only worth protection if and when they are wanted?
This would be a better nation and world.
Happy Easter!