Donald Trump saves millions of babies lives
- Thread starter VEGASDESERT
- Start date
Uh, I'm pro-choice, but I don't understand why it has to be abortion or someone has to take the child and raise it until he/she is 18. Why can't we just use contraception?
So break it down for us.... explain to us why this post is so dumb.
Are you saying that being an unwanted, neglected child is a good thing? Are you saying that people acting on their personal beliefs that having a child is better than abortion is not a good thing? Or taking care of a neglected, unwanted child is not a positive outcome? Or are you stating the government interfering in the private lives of people by making medical and family decisions for them regarding having children in their family is somehow inappropriate?
Please fill us in.
no, but life is the greatest gift you could ever get. we all have problems some
bigger than others but that doesn't make your life any less or more amazing.
Im not sure i understand your question. taking care of an unwanted child is great sure
but forced by the government? there are foster homes, adoptions, etc.. regardless
see my answer above.
no one banned abortion, they left it up to the voters to decide if killing babies is
something we should be doing.
final note, if i where to get drunk and run over a pregnant women id be charged
with crimes against the mother and unborn child.
you cant have it both ways.
Just so that some people do not lose track of the basics, being in favor of abortion, thinking that women should have the right to an abortion, and believing that without abortion there will be and are lots of unwanted children still does not place that right in the Constitution if it is not there, unless you believe in the lib view of constutional law which says that the role of justices is to "restore" those rights in the constitution which the Framers should have wanted but were allegedly too stupid to enact.
The constitution does of course need to be amended and updated from time to time and the Framers provided a means of doing so. Given the decades long heartburn and venom related to abortion, the libs should have gone for a constitutional amendment except for that pesky little fact that there is not sufficient support for it. And yet, a leftie could legitimately argue that "just because there is not sufficient support for a formal "national" amendment should not mean that my state and area should not have that right/assurance of access. Okay fine, that point is not without merit. So now it has been returned to the states where that issue can be addressed locally. As it should be.
"The Constitution does not provide for a right to abortion, but neither does it prohibit abortion." Justice Antonin Scalia
The constitution does of course need to be amended and updated from time to time and the Framers provided a means of doing so. Given the decades long heartburn and venom related to abortion, the libs should have gone for a constitutional amendment except for that pesky little fact that there is not sufficient support for it. And yet, a leftie could legitimately argue that "just because there is not sufficient support for a formal "national" amendment should not mean that my state and area should not have that right/assurance of access. Okay fine, that point is not without merit. So now it has been returned to the states where that issue can be addressed locally. As it should be.
"The Constitution does not provide for a right to abortion, but neither does it prohibit abortion." Justice Antonin Scalia
Last edited:
This isn't going to stop the NPC crowd from shrieking a narrative. They're good at that.