You write, about the "abortion issue," "It’s a problem for anyone who might become pregnant in the next four years or who cares about the life of someone who might."
And that caused me to wonder, wouldn't your statement be fuller, more correct and meaningful, if it had read, "It’s a problem for anyone who might become pregnant in…
You write, about the "abortion issue," "It’s a problem for anyone who might become pregnant in the next four years or who cares about the life of someone who might."
And that caused me to wonder, wouldn't your statement be fuller, more correct and meaningful, if it had read, "It’s a problem for anyone who might become pregnant in the next four years or who cares about the life of someone who might. It's also a problem, a very serious problem, for the baby growing inside its mother, because in point of fact, through abortion, we are killing our children."
And I would ask this. If it's acceptable to kill a person inside their mother, why isn't it acceptable to kill a person outside their mother ... or because of their sex ... or their color, age, national origin, or disability status?
I don't think Steve was trying to cover the entire issue of abortion in his single sentence; it's a very complicated issue. But there are women who have had, and will have, medical complications in wanted pregnancies who have died because of abortion bans, and Trump might well sign a nationwide ban, or reinterpret the Comstock Act as an already existing ban.
SCOTUS has made it clear abortion being ‘healthcare’ is a States rights issue. Trump has said over and over it isn’t a Fed issue. Kamala could have done nothing about it. She was lying.
Well, Chris, it seems to me you are defining abortion as IN ALL CASES the termination of a pregnancy that would have succeeded in going full term and producing a living, healthy child. In many, many cases this is NOT true. Unviable pregnancies are more likely to result in the death of the mother the longer they are allowed to proceed.
Steve ---
You write, about the "abortion issue," "It’s a problem for anyone who might become pregnant in the next four years or who cares about the life of someone who might."
And that caused me to wonder, wouldn't your statement be fuller, more correct and meaningful, if it had read, "It’s a problem for anyone who might become pregnant in the next four years or who cares about the life of someone who might. It's also a problem, a very serious problem, for the baby growing inside its mother, because in point of fact, through abortion, we are killing our children."
And I would ask this. If it's acceptable to kill a person inside their mother, why isn't it acceptable to kill a person outside their mother ... or because of their sex ... or their color, age, national origin, or disability status?
I don't think Steve was trying to cover the entire issue of abortion in his single sentence; it's a very complicated issue. But there are women who have had, and will have, medical complications in wanted pregnancies who have died because of abortion bans, and Trump might well sign a nationwide ban, or reinterpret the Comstock Act as an already existing ban.
I saw the article as being about the party of insult to white men losing the vote of white men to someone who didn't insult them.
SCOTUS has made it clear abortion being ‘healthcare’ is a States rights issue. Trump has said over and over it isn’t a Fed issue. Kamala could have done nothing about it. She was lying.
Well, Chris, it seems to me you are defining abortion as IN ALL CASES the termination of a pregnancy that would have succeeded in going full term and producing a living, healthy child. In many, many cases this is NOT true. Unviable pregnancies are more likely to result in the death of the mother the longer they are allowed to proceed.