Replies

Amazingly in all these posts not a word was mentioned about the pregnant women oftentimes threatened with abandonment if they don't abort and their children in the womb.

Why do you suppose that the abortion mills lobby for no waiting periods or informed consent laws? Could it be that is is about $$$?

They have their client just where they want her -- emotionally distraught and in their building. IF she were offered another alternative than to abort by the trespasser - the abotionists should rejoice -- because isn't abortion supposed to be rare and a hard decision to make?

How many times have we heard the abortion industry say that we should trust women to make a their own decisions? So why are they refusing others to to present another choice that they aren't willing to "provide"?

The necessity defense sounds good to me.

Several states are now debating whether a person should be charged with two murders when a woman pregnant with child is murdered.

If Mr. Goodman had protected a pregnant woman in a parking lot from being attacked, he is a hero.

If he does the same thing at an abortion mill, he is a trespasser.

Here lies the conundrum:

Today, A woman can choose to kill her "unwanted" child.

Today, An abortionist can choose to cooperate with the woman and kill her "unwanted" child.

Why should anyone's ability to live be dependent on their state of "wantedness"?

What kind of lawmakers would even consider never mind "choose" to pass a law that allows protection only for a "wanted" child and allowing the death penalty for "unwanted" children?

Either we believe that No one has the right to kill -- no woman, no abortionist, or we believe that every life is dependent on its "wantedness".

A dangerous precedent is being set with a rapidly aging boomer population reaching retirement years. Will their "wantedness" or "usefulness" be used as an excuse to require a Right to Die to be determined by their families, doctors or lawmakers' choices?

And who will be accused of being a trespasser then?