[SarahW]

I think you are saying economic costs of raising a child to the physical risks and costs of gestation and childbirth are the same thing. They aren't.

I can't help but think you are missing my point; I'm not talking about whether the law is good, I'm talking about what the basis of the law IS.

[MHGinTN]

And you have yet to acknowledge the humanity of the unborn. Very telling of your now exposed agenda.

[Gophack]

You can't compare the economic costs of raising a child to the physical risks of pregnancy ... they are apples and oranges. But not being able to "afford" a child is no excuse to kill the child. Why not then, have parents kill off their children when they are out of work, lose their house, and are on welfare? They obviously can't afford their children.

The basis of the abortion law has nothing to do with economics. The Supreme Court didn't decide Roe v Wade because some women can't afford to take care of their children. They decided Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton because they bought the argument that an unborn child was not a human person worthy of protection under the Constitution, that the living breathing mother had a right to kill their living breathing offspring if the child had not yet emerged from the mother's womb.

Period.