Before birth, it's legally about a women's right to choose regarding her body. After the baby is out of her body, and you can't make that argument anymore, I think it might be about the choice of the parents to decide what is supposedly best for the baby (more like them). If the baby is actually born, it would have to be at least a second trimester abortion, but more likely a third (if they were actually born alive). Those things are usually done because the child has a disability, and that's wrong.
What we need is a right to life regardless. They talk about a war on women. It's more like a war on life. If you're in the womb, just left the womb, have a disability, then that life isn't valued as much to society.
Here is a recent video of a Planned Parenthood lobbyist supporting post-birth abortion and Obama concurring in 2002. Can you believe there are people that think this is okay?
Question: "If a baby is born on a table as result of a botched abortion what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child struggling for life?"
Answer: "Uh well....we believe that....we believe that any decision that is made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician."
Well in my opinion that baby on the table is already part of the family.
That live baby on the table is a PATIENT! What happened to "...shall do no harm"?
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|