So far 32,000 of our smallest and most innocent of little citizen have been saved since the end of Roe vs Wade! Is this not absolutely wonderful?

[Anonymous]

So far 32,000 of our smallest and most innocent of little citizen have been saved since the end of Roe V. s. Wade! Is this not absolutely wonderful?

https://www.oann.com/newsroom/overturning-of-roe-v-wade-shows-increased-birth-rates-by-32k-study/

Its hard to imagine anything more monstrous than the deliberate murder of a innocent baby.

Yet a large number of people in a lot of states have in the interest of their own personal convenience decided to dehumanize and murder their own children.
The one most innocent person in the world related to them most deserving of their love and affection. Killed because mom didn't want to take responsibility for her own choices or felt the life ANYONE could offer (she has no obligation to keep the baby) to said baby unworthy.

Imagine if anyone else had such power to end your life simply because they didn't feel it worth living? Yet that is what is being done not to adults guilty of many offense but baby's guilty of none.

Read the article:

[BCA6010]

It's good, but far from great. Abortions have only been reduced by roughly 3%, and over 99% of the ones still being carried out are entirely elective, not involving risk of life to the mother, rape, incest, etc. Roughly half of the politicians who used to run on pro life platforms ended up backtracking because it turns out it was more valuable to them as a talking point they wouldn't have to deliver on.

[Anonymous]

Fetuses do not meet the standards to be considered a citizen. Nor a baby for that matter.
Don’t let that stop your appeal to emotion though.

[Asker]

What Standard, and where did we agree to that horrible standard?

Just because you decide to do as a lot of Germans 80 years ago and palestinians today have done. By dehumanize other people feel who's life you have reasoned is "an unjust inconvenience" to your own.

Does not mean you have that right. Governments exist among men to draw that line and protect the innocent from monsters like yourself who deem their life unworthy of equal protection of the laws.

The same protection you demand for your own life from other who might feel the same way about you.

[Opinion Owner]

It wasn’t me that defined American citizens as “persons born….” If you take issue with that, GAG and its community members are not the ones who created that parameter. Remember that!
“The same protection you demand for your own life from other who might feel the same way about you.”
So…. If I can be forced to use my body to sustain the life of another, you must agree that the same standard should be applied to you as well? In the name of saving lives, you should be forced to give blood?
Bone marrow?
Are you already in the donor list?
You’ll save a life, if that’s actually your concern.

[Asker]

Technically Citizenship comes from your state, the Feds simply have the right to establish a uniform rule for immigration for all states to follow. The 14th Amendment to the extent it was ever legitimately ratified under the gun invents a new concept of Federal Citizenship which simply is derived from per-existing State Citizenship.
Thus making Americans Technically duel citizens, a fact the court recently pointed out, although it changes very little. (One of many reasons why the people who wrote the 14th amendment were the most irresponsible idiots ever to force thou an amendment. Which is why they required dirty tricks and a gun to the head of 11 states to 'ratify' it.)

So yes the State defines where citizenship begins, and also to a lesser degree where the legal protection of life begins and ends. Life of course begins at conception when its unique DNA is first successfully formed.
The feds simply have the right to tell us to how to accept imported life. Regardless the exact details of that judgement being the very foundation of every law MUST be decided by the state which apples such laws, Not individuals.

To this end My state recognizes the right to human life begins with human life at conception. Thus you cannot kill that person except under clearly defined circumstances largely based upon self-defense. IE: The mother's life must be in imminent danger. Which is the same standard for all human life regardless of age in this state.

If I had done something (as you had done in having sex) to put someone else in a position where they required blood (or anything else i might safely donate) to live when yes I would be liable.

This has always been the case in law, we call this concept "liability". For today practical reasons we tend to allow money to be taken in exchange, historically however it was lex talionis an Eye for an Eye.

[Opinion Owner]

“If I had done something (as you had done in having sex) to put someone else in a position where they required blood (or anything else i might safely donate) to live when yes I would be liable.”
I appreciate you admitting, as most in anti-choice crew eventually do, that it’s not about saving lives.
It’s about punishing women for having sex. If it was about saving lives, you’d want to save lives.
Not just squawk online about how other people should be forced to do it.
That’s what you call a hypocrite.
Good day

[Asker]

Nobody has a right to do anything at all without the natural consequences that can follow from that action. This is life, and just because you don't want to accept responsibility for those choices does not entitle you to end someone else's life to avoid it.

If you want to regard a child, the intended and natural consequence of sex as NATURE intended to be punishment that is fine by me.

It changes nothing It is no different than you hitting someone with a car, the natural possable consequence of going quickly without control. You are Just as much responsible for the consequence of that act too. Yet you would have us ignore their right to life as you declare them in-human and undeserving of it so that you can walk away from your liability.

A unborn baby is every bit as human as you are, the fact that they are currently depended upon a form of food and shelter that anther person must provide does not distinwish them from the person you critically injured with your car.