Pages

Friday, June 20, 2014

One Absurd Conclusion of the Pro-Choice Position

[Today's guest post by Clinton Wilcox is part of our paid blogging program.]

One of the problems with the pro-choice position, aside from the fact that abortion unjustly kills an innocent child, is the fact that it places the will of the parents over the needs of the child, when in fact it should be the other way around. The vast, vast majority of children are conceived through a consensual act by the mother and father, and the child is conceived through no fault or desire of their own. After all, you cannot consent to being brought into existence because you would have to precede your own conception in order to do that, which is logically absurd. So a child is brought into existence, then killed once deemed inconvenient by the mother, father (in which case coercion usually follows), or both.

However, in many cases our courts actually recognize that the child's needs come before the parent's desires, even if the child is preborn. In many states, including my own very liberal state of California, if someone kills a wanted unborn child, it is considered an independent homicide. The best-known example of this is Scott Peterson, who killed his wife, Lacy, and their unborn child. He was charged with two counts of homicide.

Another example of the child's needs being put before the will of the parents is in the case of child support. Whereas a woman can opt to have an abortion or make an adoption plan if she chooses to be a mother no longer, a father does not have that option. Whether or not he wants to be a father to that child (or whether or not the mother will let him have a relationship with the child), the state will require that he pay child support. That may mean that he will be forced to continue using his own body to work for 18 years and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money toward that child. It seems inconsistent in a country with legalized abortion to require fathers to pay child support. But they are required, as they should be, because the needs of the child come first.

In their essay "Constitutional Balance," in The Morality of Abortion: Legal and Historical Perspectives (ed. by John T. Noonan, Jr., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1970, pp. 244-245), authors David W. Louisell and John T. Noonan, Jr. recount a court case* involving a pregnant Jehovah's Witness. Adherents of that religion interpret the Bible as saying that blood transfusions are sinful. But she was forced to undergo a blood transfusion because her unborn child was anemic. Freedom of religion is a cherished constitutional right, but that right can be superceded if it will cause harm to another person. Louisell and Noonan comment:
The right not to have the state enforce its beliefs upon one's conscience, a 'fixed star in our constitutional constellation,' might have led the court to subordinate the fetus' interest in survival to the constitutional right of the parents to practice their religion. Instead, the life of the fetus was treated as a value outweighing even a prized constitutional liberty. In a previous case, a New Jersey court had ordered a transfusion, despite his parents' religious objections, to a 'blue baby' suffering from a lack of oxygen after birth. The court composed of Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Hall, Schettino, and Haneman found no difference between that case and the case now presented of a fetus likely to be aborted if denied blood.
These are just a few examples in which a child's needs are placed over the desires of the parent. Yet our country allows legalized abortion, placing a woman's desires (often disguised in terms of "health," such as "financial or familial health") over the needs of the unborn child. The bottom line is that an unborn child is denied life because a woman feels that there is some reason she should not be a mother, despite the fact that she already is one. (Or, frequently, because a man feels that there is some reason he should not be a father, despite the fact that he already is one.)

Making abortion illegal again is the step in the right direction we need. The unborn child, as a vulnerable member of our species, needs protection of those more powerful than themselves.

*Raleigh Fitkin-Paul Memorial Hospital v. Anderson, 42 N.J. 421, 201 A. 2d 537, cert. denied 377 U.S. 985 (1964).

79 comments:

Chandler Klebs said...

I completely agree. The laws must be consistent. I think this post shows the contradiction very well.

Coyote said...

The pro-choicers will respond to you by pointing out that we don't and shouldn't force parents to donate body parts to their own children even when their own children need these body parts in order to survive and even when their children are unable to get these body parts (in time, at least) from someone else.

Coyote said...

"However, in many cases our courts actually recognize that the child's needs come before the parent's desires, even if the child is preborn. In many states, including my own very liberal state of California, if someone kills a wanted unborn child, it is considered an independent homicide. The best-known example of this is Scott Peterson, who killed his wife, Lacy, and their unborn child. He was charged with two counts of homicide."

This appears to be nonsensical to do unless abortion is also considered to be homicide (whether justifiable homicide or not).

myintx said...

Parents ARE responsible for taking basic care of their children though - providing them food and shelter and keeping them safe. That is exactly what pregnancy is. Parents are also not allowed to kill their born children.

Coyote said...

Not when it involves letting their children use their body in order to survive.

someone45 said...

A person is NOT a parent just because they are pregnant. You cannot force anyone to donate their body to sustain the life of another. Why is it pregnant women are the only person who is so inferior they have no control over their body in your twisted view?

myintx said...

Unless their life is truly endangered from the pregnancy, what kind of person wouldn't let their unborn son or daughter stay in their womb for a few short months so they have a chance at a full and productive life? COEXIST for a few short months. What kind of person wouldn't make that sacrifice for their own offspring?

someone45 said...

You do not get to decide what is right for a woman and her body. Your definition of coexist it twisted and sick. One has to suffer in misery and get nothing out of it... That does not seem like coexisting to me. That seems like torture.

myintx said...

It's a sick world we live in where parents wouldn't do that.

myintx said...

Once again, a pro-abort refused to acknowledge the existence of the other human being involved in a pregnancy.


A woman shouldn't get to decide to KILL her own unborn child. I will vote for pro-life leaders who agree with me so that hopefully one day the mistake known as Roe V Wade is overturned.

someone45 said...

It is only a potential human being and why exactly is it so important that a woman can be forced to be less than human and be forced to donate her body against her will?


I will vote for pro-choice leaders so our votes will just cancel each others out...

myintx said...

Laws TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO DO ALL THE TIME - is that 'forcing' them? is it 'forcing' someone telling them they should not kill their newborn? even if that newborn keeps them awake at night and even if a pro-abort told the woman she'd suffer mental anguish putting her child up for adoption? Not, it's not 'forcing', it's PROTECTING the most vulnerable among us. The unborn are among the most vulnerable among us. They should be protected.

someone45 said...

The newborn is not inside another person's body. It is different. Why can you not understand that. Do you really hate women that much that you think that she is nothing but a walking incubator for the fetus?

Coyote said...

Actually, some pro-choice arguments can be used to justify elective infanticide in at least certain cases. After all, human infants currently have equal or greater intelligence to some viable non-human animals which we sometimes/often kill.

Coyote said...

It is one thing to force someone into doing this and another thing to let someone make their own decision in regards to this.

Coyote said...

"It is only a potential human being"

If so, then people shouldn't be charged with murder/manslaughter for killing embryos and fetuses.

Coyote said...

Well, you can try voting for politicians who have similar views to yours on this.

(Though, if we are going to go down that path, then wouldn't it make sense to declare all fetuses past a certain point of development to be persons?)

myintx said...

A woman with a newborn is more than a parent. A woman with an unborn child is more than pregnant - they are all WOMEN. Neither should be able to kill their offspring. An unborn child and a newborn child are both HUMAN BEINGS. Surely you can understand that if the unborn child is killed it will NEVER have a chance at a full and productive life.

myintx said...

Laws tell us what to do all the time. They tell parents they cannot kill their newborns. Even if a pro-abort told them they would suffer mental anguish putting their child up for adoption. No matter how negatively the newborn affects the parent, they cannot kill it. They shouldn't be able to kill their child before it's born either.


It would be nice if people could make the right decision and give live to their offspring. But, just as there are people who will murder, do drugs and other immoral things, there are people that will kill their unborn children. We need laws to protect unborn children from those types of people.

someone45 said...

You can't force a woman to donate her life, health, body, nutrients, organs, etc for an unwanted invader to grow inside her. That is equal to slavery.


The "unborn child" has no conscience though so I am more concerned about the full and productive life of the woman who is going to actually know what she lost if she is forced to suffer the misery of pregnancy.

myintx said...

What's akin to slavery is a woman treating her own unborn son or daughter like a piece of property that can be discarded. Just like slave owners used to do.

someone45 said...

No what is equal to slavery is telling the woman she has to use her body and life against her will to sustain the existence of the unwanted invader no matter how much she suffers and despite the fact that she gets nothing out of it.


It is the woman's body and no one has the right to force anyone to use their body against their will in any way.

myintx said...

In most cases, the 'invader' was invited in.... The 'invader' is her own unborn son or daughter, not a threat. The 'invader' is a human being that should have rights.


It is NOT the woman's body that is killed during an abortion. Face the facts of what you support.

someone45 said...

The invader has no righ tto be there unless the woman is willing to allow it to use her body, life, and nutrients while she suffers in misery for nine months.


It IS the woman's body that has the unwanted embryo inside it. She has every right to remove it if she wants. Women are people with rights even if you don't like it.

myintx said...

There are 2 human beings directly involved in the pregnancy.... All innocent human beings should have a right to life. What kind of woman would not want to COEXIST with her own unborn son or daughter for a few short months so that he or she could have a chance at a full and productive life? What kind of women would kill?


Unless the woman's life is truly endangered from the pregnancy and abortion is the only way to save her life, NO ONE should have the 'right' to kill an unborn child.

someone45 said...

Nope there is only one human being with a right to life involved in a pregnancy and you can't make an embryo/fetus into a person.



Abortion isn't killing you keep saying it is like you are going to convince me that I should willingly give up everything and suffer 24/7 if I end up pregnant. Guess what it is NOT going to happen.

purrtriarchy said...

You'd force an 8 year old victim of rape to give birth even if it was known that the pregnancy would permanently disable her.

You have no moral high ground.

myintx said...

When a woman is pregnant, she doesn't have a canine or a feline in her womb, she has an unborn HUMAN BEING in her womb.
Slaves weren't considered full people at one point in our history. LAWS were changed to recognize them as full people. Laws should be changed to recognize unborn children as people - because they are. They are not dogs or cats, they are human beings and deserve the same rights as other innocent human beings.
An unborn child is alive. Very often with it's own heartbeat. Abortion ends that life, the same way someone poisoning a newborn on life support would end his or her life. Abortion kills. Face the reality of what you support.

myintx said...

Who says pregnant women are worthless (other than you, of course)? You need to re-read the Secular Pro-life blog " Pro-Life Perspectives: I Am Equal Without Abortion"

myintx said...

First - 'control of their body' is not a basic human right - drug laws, prostitution laws, yelling 'fire' in a movie theatre, etc are just a few examples where people don't have full control over their bodies.


Second - IF 'control of their body' was a basic human right, abortion would already be illegal. An unborn child has it's own body. And, like a newborn, it needs someone else to speak for it and protect it. We need laws to protect the bodies of unborn children.




Unborn children deserve better than to be killed merely because they are unwanted.

someone45 said...

Yes control of ones body is a right. You can't force me to do anything with my body against my will. Prostitution is illegal because of the money. A woman is still free to sleep with 100 men if she wants.

Yelling fire in a theater is illegal because it can hurt actual other people and involves more than just one body.





By giving the zef contorl of its "body" you would have to strip the woman of her rights to her body and her right to control her life. She is the one with an actual life so she gets the choice.


Women deserve better than the misery of forced unwanted pregnancy simply because YOU think they are worthless inferior mindless breeding cows.

purrtriarchy said...

Indeed. Control of the body is not a basic human right.


Which is why..


1) rape is not a crime


2) i can take your kidney to preserve my life, because the right to life is more important than your right to not be assaulted

purrtriarchy said...

I don't know if you have run across myintx before, but she does not have an original thoughts, and just parrots the same lines over and over again. Literally.


She is not one of the more thoughtful posters here, like coyote and simon jm.

someone45 said...

Yeah I think she has her lines that she copies and pastes over and over again. She is just really frustrating with her views on women and abortion.

Coyote said...

Using that rationale, why exactly shouldn't parents be *forced* to donate their own body parts to their children?

myintx said...

What's frustrating is knowing there are people out there that won't even TRY if they get pregnant and will kill just because they don't care.

someone45 said...

Well when a woman KNOWS that a pregnancy is unwanted why exactly should she try? She isn't going to change her mind and suddenly love the idea of playing host and being miserable for nine months.

myintx said...

No, control of one's body is not a full right - it ends when another body could get hurt - that should include the unborn.


It's not 'her body' that is killed in an abortion. In the case of a pregnancy, there are 2 bodies involved. Since both should have a right to life (they are both human), a little COEXISTENCE is in order for a few short months so that a new human being gets a chance at life.


#COEXIST.

someone45 said...

A zef is not another body but you are so lost you will never see that. It requires her body to live therefore it is not seprate.

myintx said...

What kind of parent wouldn't donate body parts to their children if their children need it? Oh yea.. the same kind that would kill their children before they are born :(

Laws say that parents have to provide BASIC food and shelter for their children. For unborn children, basic food and shelter includes a womb. For born children it includes housing and food (hopefully more), but not organ donation.

Here is a good document that goes through many different scenarios and basically boils down to the fact that parents have a responsibility to take basic care of their offspring: http://www.jfaweb.org/Training/DeFactoGuardian-v03.pdf

myintx said...

You never know... Some women fall in love with their unborn children when they feel them kick in their womb or when they see their unborn child's heartbeat on an ultrasound. With counselling, support and help that women didn't even know existed it could change her outlook on life.

someone45 said...

Oh myintx you know nothing. You are sad and confused. I know want a want out of life and I would not enjoy having an invader in my body kicking me and causing me misery.


Now I really need to listen to other people's advice and ignore you because your hatred of women really bugs me.

myintx said...

About 1/2 the unborn killed are future women. If anyone hates women, it's YOU.


I want to see women with unwanted pregnancies helped and the lives of future women (and men) saved. That doesn't make me a hater. That makes me someone who cares about others, not just myself.

someone45 said...

No you want to see women with unwanted pregnancies carry to term. That is all you care about.

myintx said...

Nope.... You see, I happen to CARE about all innocent human beings. You don't.

myintx said...

Nope.. I care about ALL innocent human beings. You don't.

Lea Singh said...

This post shows very well how many of our laws protect the rights and needs of children that have been born. Such children's best interests are in general placed above the desires of parents.

However, where unborn children are concerned, our legal framework is in general the opposite - and not just in the case of abortion. In the gigantic field of reproductive technologies, the rights of children most definitely are an afterthought.

It's a Wild West out there, with gametes being bought and sold to piece together embryos like Lego. Anyone with cash can buy the "right" to a child, and can in effect have a child made to order using the sperm and egg of hand-picked "donors", and delivered to his or her doorstep via a surrogate.

Does anyone ask such children whether they consent to being raised by people who are genetic strangers, whose only claim to that child is that they purchased the sperm and egg that created this human being? Does this kind of claim not equal, in essence, the ownership that masters had over slaves?

It's true that our society makes no sense. We treat the unborn child as a possession without any rights, but suddenly upon birth, the child's interests are elevated above those of his or her parents. Living with this crazy contradiction is the price we are willing to pay, it seems, for being able to do whatever we desire (even those things that are morally wrong) in the areas of sexuality and human reproduction.

ignorance_is_curable said...

Ah, but exactly how to make the Law consistent --and why choose a particular consistency-- is still something that can be Debated. There are plenty of places where one aspect of the Law was written or interpreted differently from some other aspect of the Law; this article merely focuses on one of those places.


Before getting to that, though, what of consistency in other relevant things? Like mis-using the word "child" to label an unborn human, when unborn human organisms include placentas, while ordinary children don't. Once you realize that a whole unborn human organism is different from a post-natal child, a Law that is written to protect children need longer be applied to the unborn!


Then there is Hypocrisy: in any other Legal situation, the creator of something, not paid by someone else to create it, has the right to destroy it. Why should that be different for unwanted unborn human animal organisms, of which certainly no-one paid for those unwanted organisms to be conceived?


That leads us to consistency about the word "person", and more Hypocrisy. Abortion opponents are quite willing to embrace Science to prove that unborn humans qualify as humans, but they seem unwilling to embrace Science to define "person", such that the word would be applicable for any type of person, anywhere in the wide wide Universe, and always successfully distinguish persons from mere animal organisms, such as unborn humans.


Circling back to the Law, which very specifically is about persons, and rights and protections of persons, when we have a Universally consistent definition of that word, we again would have consistency regarding the Law and unborn humans --they need NO rights or protections, when unwanted. (When wanted, "property rights Laws" can apply.)

Chandler Klebs said...

"Then there is Hypocrisy: in any other Legal situation, the creator of
something, not paid by someone else to create it, has the right to
destroy it. Why should that be different for unwanted unborn human animal organisms, of which certainly no-one paid for those unwanted organisms to be conceived?"


Any living animal is very different from a creation which is not living. A machine has no will and cannot feel pain. If my computer was destroyed, it would not be hurt. I would be extremely upset, but it can be replaced, while living things cannot be replaced.

Chandler Klebs said...

I don't believe in anything metaphysical, but I specifically meant that living things cannot be EXACTLY replaced in the sense of their entire personality. If I had been killed either when I was a zygote or when I was ten years old, either way I would not be here and no one would be exactly like me.

And if I am ignorant of Biology, BioChemistry, and Molecular Biology, that is something that I can learn more about, but only if it will make a difference in changing people to see the relevance of life. Otherwise, without a respect for life, no amount of science does any good for anyone.

kitler said...

Does respect for life = creating as many humans as possible?

Chandler Klebs said...

Not at all. In fact I think people who do sex lack respect for the life that is already here. I have no desire to bring more children into this world and I am a virgin for that reason. I am very pro-adoption and I think that people need to take care of those who are here before they create more babies.


But after people have already made that mistake, it is senseless to punish the child for the existence it did not choose.

Chandler Klebs said...

Your hatred of other living beings really bugs me.

ignorance_is_curable said...

Now you are exhibiting egotism. You are no more unique than any other human. An average human is no more unique than an average rat or mole or pig or bull or ram --but we routinely kill those other animals, anyway. They are fairly easily replaced (sometimes more-so than we want them to be!).


Every unborn human that is killed by abortion is just as unique as the next one that is conceived. NONE are inherently more valuable than any of the others. None have "intrinsic value" at all, in fact, just like the average equally-unique cockroach doesn't have intrinsic value.


Finally, your so-called "respect for life" is Pure Stupid Prejudice AND Mindless Natural Biology (look up "K-strategy reproduction") --since it is ALL about respecting ONLY human life. Because of that, our overpopulation of the world is making other species --entire species, each one just as unique as the human species!-- extinct every day. The fact is, Too Much Of Any Good Thing Is Always A Bad Thing, Period.


We DON'T need to be Stupidly Prejudiced about "human life". We need to be pragmatic. There is an implicit thing in human societies called "the Social Contract" that, if openly specified, can provide all the normal protections of human persons that we currently associate with "morals" or "ethics". But only subscribers to the Social Contract get those protections --that's why cultures have, Historically, viewed outsiders as "fair game" for exploitation. Today, with our worldwide interconnectedness, we could get just about everyone in the world to join a single global Social Contract --but for the unborn, it is impossible for them to consciously subscribe to it --they are only animal organisms, not persons, and we need to be pragmatic about it, not Stupidly Prejudiced by Mindless Natural Biology.

someone45 said...

I don't hate other living beings.


An embryo is alive but it is not a human being.Now that said I strongly dislike the anti-choicers who try to force their views onto others. It is my body so stay out of it.

Chandler Klebs said...

I don't care if it is human or not. If a human woman was somehow pregnant with a pig it would not make its life any less valuable.

Chandler Klebs said...

If by her "life" you mean her actual physical life is endangered, then I agree with you, but if by "life" you mean her temporary emotional feelings about the pregnancy, then I don't.

Chandler Klebs said...

Agree totally. I support a woman's right to be born.

kitler said...

Permanent emotional mental and physical damage.

No thanks.

The right to self determination overrides the right toblife.

kitler said...

So she can be treated as an easy bake oven.

myintx said...

Good one! I like that :)

myintx said...

So, if a woman with a newborn doesn't want it and thinks she will suffer "permanent emotional damage" by putting her child up for adoption, can she kill it? NO! But she can get help to get over any issues she has :)

kitler said...

Pro-choicers want to kill EVERYONE.



Pro-choice = TALIBAN


Didn't you just assert that over on Mother Jones?

Ann Morgan said...

How about I beat you up every day with a baseball bat for a 'few short months' and at the end of the 'few short months' stuff the baseball bat up your ass, then refer to that as 'coexistence' and claim it is no more painful than sitting on your couch and eating doritos?

Ann Morgan said...

Once again, a pro-lifer refused to acknowledge the absence of a functioning mind in the embryo, or the rights of the person who does have a functioning mind.


A rapist and extortionist shouldn't get to decide what other people do with their own bodies.

Ann Morgan said...

So... if a law passed telling you that you had to go and work in a brothel for free and have sex with 8-12 strangers a day, you'd be fine with that. If it was 'the law'?


Babbling about the unborn being 'vulnerable' is nonsense. Being 'vulnerable' does not convey rights, and something without a mind or agency does not have rights. A Christmas tree ornament is 'vulnerable'. Guess what, it doesn't have rights, and even if you had sad feelies about it, it still doesn't have rights.

Ann Morgan said...

Surely you can understand that if I don't force you to have sex with strange men against your will, the unfertilized egg will never have a CHANCE at a full and productive life.


Why do you get to decide exactly which things with what number of genes, but with no mind get to be used to abrogate the rights of real people so that they can have a 'chance'?

Ann Morgan said...

**In most cases, the 'invader' was invited in**

Not unless you can show me that the woman either has conscious control over her fertility, or deliberately set out to get pregnant, such as you did in your extortion scheme.

**The 'invader' is a human being that should have rights.**



The seat of rights is in the brain. Nothing else makes sense. No brain means no rights. No matter how many sad feelies you have about it. And there is no 'right' even in people with brains to violate the bodily autonomy of other people. Not if their 'very life' depends on it. Not for a 'few short months'.

Ann Morgan said...

A 'body' does not have rights. Not without a brain. Not because of it's 'very life'. Not for a 'few short months'.

myintx said...

An unborn child is a human being and should have a basic right to life.

myintx said...

A woman does have control over her fertility. If a woman is so crazy that she knows she would kill if she ever got pregnant, she can have her freakin uterus removed.


There is no such thing as full bodily autonomy - post viability abortion laws, drug laws, prostitution laws are just a few examples. An unborn child is a human being one second before his or her brain starts functioning, one second before that, one second before that, etc - all the way back to when he or she was created - at fertilization. He or she should be protected from being killed simply for being inconvenient or unwanted.

myintx said...

It's not 'their own bodies' killed in an abortion is it? It's the body of another human being- an unborn child. Parents have a responsibility for their offspring. That responsibility should start when their offspring are created - at fertilization.

myintx said...

Laws have already been passed saying that parents have a responsibility to provide food and shelter to their offspring - to ensure their safety. Boo hoo if you feel that is 'forcing' someone to do something against their will. That responsibility should start well before birth- it should start when their offspring is created.


All children - born and unborn- should be protected from being killed simply because they are inconvenient or unwanted.

myintx said...

An unfertilized egg is not a human being. catch a clue.


No one should have the 'right' to kill an unborn child simply because that tiny human being is inconvenient or unwanted.

Ann Morgan said...

You've babbled that about sixteen times now. The fact that it's biologically a 'human being' doesn't give it rights because it doesn't have a brain, and the 'right to life' of people WITH a brain does not give them the right to the body of other people, regardless of whether they happen to 'need' it or not.


Are you so stupid that you can't come up with an original argument, so need to keep repeating the same phrases from your pet pamphlet, or are you actually a straw man identity for several different people, who are unaware that some of the others have already babbled exactly the same thing several times previously?

myintx said...

An unborn child has a brain well before 24 weeks.... By your logic then you're against abortion after an unborn child has a brain. And, you're against Roe V Wade. Work to overturn that p o s. :)


I don't need made up arguments to defend my position like your side does. I just need one - an unborn child is a human being and as a human being he or she should have basic human rights - including a right to life.

Ann Morgan said...

It's brain is not functioning before 24 weeks, which you've been told before. Stop pretending to be stupid.


And you don't get 'human rights' simply by being an organism with human DNA, without a brain. Nor does anyone, brain or no brain, get a 'right to life' if it requires violating someone else's right to their own body. Not if the person is their mother. Not if the person is a good tissue match for the kidney they need. Not if Myintx has sad feelies about it or wants to use it in her extortion schemes. Not for a 'few short months'. Not for a 'few short minutes'.


Your 'one argument' is provable bullshit. The rest of most of them are equivocation fallacies. You need better arguments. Why don't you run out and get some new pamphlets? The constant mindless repetition from the ones you have is getting real dull.

myintx said...

Nope.. you never said functioning. You just said having a brain... lol. Change the narrative to support the killing.


And, there are basic brain functions before 24 weeks. Sounds like you're saying a preemie born at 23 weeks can be killed.... sick. SIck how you support ripping the arms and legs off of a 22 week old unborn child.


Abortion violates the rights an unborn child should have. A basic right to life. A parent has a RESPONSIBILITY to care for their offspring. They shouldn't have a right to kill them.


You have no arguments for killing unborn children. Except a horrible Supreme Court decision. I'm sure racists who wanted to keep black people out of their businesses stood behind a horrible SC decision in their attempts to justify dehumanizing black people.

secularprolife.org said...

Unborn children do after viability.... They should before viability