Also see, https://people.southwestern.edu/~bednarb/su_netWorks/projects/saenz/photogallery.html Source: M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597. http://www.prolife.com/FETALDEV.html.
Esp. applicable here to those "conservatives" who criticize making abortion an election issue under the premise that it is "not a winnable position," while the reason that it is not is because, as part of the decline of basic Biblical Christianity, conservatives have largely ceased to make what has been scientifically and graphically obvious for decades, which is the Biblical truth that what has been conceived in the womb is not some mere blob of tissue growth, but a human entity, which is to be valued as much and more than the nested egg of a migratory bird, which by law is protected from harm.
And as regards the typical red herring recourse of liberals, 98% of abortions are due to reasons other than rape, incest:
As for the "my body, my right" reasoning, why is that right not provided for the human being that resulted from choosing (in 98% of all cases) to engage in sexual relations - which the female body is designed to achieve conception by?
Even if someone you invited into your car or house secretly brings a child with them without your consent, then you simply do not have the right to exterminate that life, which is not a lethal threat to you. In some states, you cannot even shoot suspected burglars unless they manifestly endanger lives, much less a lost vulnerable child who finds a way into your house since you left the door open.
So in order to justify the “pro-choice” position - which is denying the subject of extermination any choice in the matter, and is contrary to the normal course of nature - then one must deny that what is inside the womb is a human person (unless pro-choice promoters are willing to be classed as murderers, which they are).
And thus the pro anti-infant choice promoter must justify their basis for determining that.
Will it be the ability to function on its own, though it rather shortly will be able to? If so, then you had best not be laid up for a while if needing life-sustaining support.
And of course, most aged in nursing homes could thus be turned into sources of protein.
Will it be based upon location, meaning outside the womb killing the infant would be murder, but before that it is open game?
Or will the unborn human life be valued at least as much as the eggs of protected migratory birds are?
