Saveduplife, is this what your user name refers to? A saved up life? You've really been thinking about this for a while, eh?
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
You use an incubation period, in a hospital, once they are old enough they will be available to be adopted. How's that losing compassion? I honestly don't understand your point at all.
If I was able to suspend my disbelief enough that foster care, private and public alike, could be about a hundred times less shitty than they are now, and if they were able to find about one million more supportive families PER YEAR to take the child that would have been otherwise aborted, then I would begin to accept your notion. But I don't have that active an imagination.
You use an incubation period, in a hospital, once they are old enough they will be available to be adopted. How's that losing compassion? I honestly don't understand your point at all.
We'd have to build a whole hell of a lot of new hospitals to support this idea. Not to mention all the hospital staff that many say we don't have enough of already. Once again, quite costly...
(If we had the resources to build more hospitals & train/hire more staff, shouldn't we be doing this already considering the unmet need of the people who are already born?)
Once again. Malthus was wrong. Look him up. Look what he said. It's identical to what you are saying. It WAS why economics got the title the Dismal Science. Anyway, he's been proven wrong empirically time and time again. His theory, although seminal, is now not considered relevant at all.
Um again. You're confused. This doesn't have anything to do with Malthus. Had China not instated the one child policy, they would have imploded as a country, unable to support the exponential growth they were experiencing in 1960s. Had that gone unchecked for the last 40 years, they would have been toast and unfortunately, the rest of the world would have to had to bear the consequences of the sheer numbers.
Not anything personal, but this might be one of the worst ideas I've heard in a really long time.
We should harvest the unborn because we can't stop spending money? Because we've bankrupted social security? We can't seem to generate enough tax revenue, so we should just get more people? To offset the cost of developing this technology, caring for these children while they remain unadopted--like so many children who are already alive and living and desperately in need of someone to love and care for them--to cover their health benefits, and any other of the listless ways we seem to be relying on the government economically, in the hopes that some twenty years later they will pay for a college education, work their way out of debt, and then begin to pay down all the money we've mismanaged is ridiculous, cruel, and seriously lacking in any level of respect for the "sanctity of life."
If our tax problem is that for every dollar thrown in, we're spending a buck fifty...adding more dollars doesn't get us even. If the problem was we didn't have enough workers right now we could loosen restrictions on immigration.
Here's a better proposal: Mandatory abortions. No making new people until we sort out the billions already alive who struggle everyday for basic necessities.
No, my name refers to a PJ lyric in light years. lol
But, nice try.
Woops.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
Um again. You're confused. This doesn't have anything to do with Malthus. Had China not instated the one child policy, they would have imploded as a country, unable to support the exponential growth they were experiencing in 1960s. Had that gone unchecked for the last 40 years, they would have been toast and unfortunately, the rest of the world would have to had to bear the consequences of the sheer numbers.
No, I'm not. Read Malthus and read the criticism of his work.
There's a steady state growth rate for everything. Our population is growing below it. As is Europe.
Increasing our popuation growth is not a bad thing. If it was ridiculously excessive, yes, maybe. But, this example would not lead to a ridiculously excessive increase.
Our population is held up right now by the baby boom generation. When their generation passes on, we will most likely see a significant decline in population growth.
Not anything personal, but this might be one of the worst ideas I've heard in a really long time.
We should harvest the unborn because we can't stop spending money? Because we've bankrupted social security? We can't seem to generate enough tax revenue, so we should just get more people? To offset the cost of developing this technology, caring for these children while they remain unadopted--like so many children who are already alive and living and desperately in need of someone to love and care for them--to cover their health benefits, and any other of the listless ways we seem to be relying on the government economically, in the hopes that some twenty years later they will pay for a college education, work their way out of debt, and then begin to pay down all the money we've mismanaged is ridiculous, cruel, and seriously lacking in any level of respect for the "sanctity of life."
If our tax problem is that for every dollar thrown in, we're spending a buck fifty...adding more dollars doesn't get us even. If the problem was we didn't have enough workers right now we could loosen restrictions on immigration.
Here's a better proposal: Mandatory abortions. No making new people until we sort out the billions already alive who struggle everyday for basic necessities.
Look at it this way.
Population cohorts:
Age 1-20 has 10 people
Age 20-40 has 8 people
Age 40-60 has 14 people
Age 60-100 has 10 people
When the last two brackets die off, we'll have plenty of jobs and not enough people. Also, as that 3rd bracket retires, we can't pay all these entitlements. because there's not large enough of a tax base.
You'll see the gov't WILL institute population GROWTH policies.... these will happen very very soon.
99% of all people want to live. The other less than 1% kill themselves.
You have ABSOLUTELY NO basis to state that 99% of fetuses want to live. (And I don't think you even have basis for stating that 99% of people want to live either.)
You have ABSOLUTELY NO basis to state that 99% of fetuses want to live. (And I don't think you even have basis for stating that 99% of people want to live either.)
Plus, plenty of people don't want to live who don't take an active enough role to kill themselves. Plenty more would have chosen to never be born, if given that choice.
Age 1-20 has 10 people
Age 20-40 has 8 people
Age 40-60 has 14 people
Age 60-100 has 10 people
When the last two brackets die off, we'll have plenty of jobs and not enough people. Also, as that 3rd bracket retires, we can't pay all these entitlements. because there's not large enough of a tax base.
You'll see the gov't WILL institute population GROWTH policies.... these will happen very very soon.
Alright, I'm half running out the door, so I don't have time to check some census information that would surely be pertinent to the conversation...
But what happens then when those numbers shift. The last two brackets die and we have even more people retiring, so we need even more people to pay for them, who in turn need even more people to pay for them...
At what point does that become unsustainable? Does it not make more sense for us to develop a long-term sustainable system for keeping our economy afloat and our retired population comfortably cared for?
Also, what are your thoughts on allowing higher levels of immigration to supplement the workforce (if you still believe adding more people to the bottom of this pyramid is the right solution)? The payoff would be more immediate, yes? Instead of waiting twenty or so years for our future workers to "mature" and incurring all of the costs associated with getting them to that stage...aren't there ready-made brown people over the age of 18 looking to pitch in?
Well then that is based on the assumption that those are going to commit suicide will commit suicide no matter what; that it's "genetics", and that external factors do not contribute to the decision to take that action. Good attempt, though.
Well then that is based on the assumption that those are going to commit suicide will commit suicide no matter what; that it's "genetics", and that external factors do not contribute to the decision to take that action. Good attempt, though.
Not an attempt at all. The statistic doesn't reference any specific person. It says 99% of people do not kill themselves. Clearly, that less than 1% doesn't like life. That's why they do what they do. If you expect the figures to change by a large margin even though they've been in the same relative range throughout history, you don't understand statistics.
Not an attempt at all. The statistic doesn't reference any specific person. It says 99% of people do not kill themselves. Clearly, that less than 1% doesn't like life. That's why they do what they do. If you expect the figures to change by a large margin even though they've been in the same relative range throughout history, you don't understand statistics.
Maybe with all that education, you've forgotten your common sense.
You are comparing suicide rates of people who are alive to fetuses, who have no cognitive brain function until the third trimester. Please think this through.
For pro-choicers...
What if (yes it's a what if question, sorry) we could extract a fetus at any time during a preganacy? The most you'd have to wait is up 1-2 months (most women just find out they are preganant around that time) to get it extracted. So the procedure is most likely similar to an abortion. Once the baby is extracted, it is placed in incubation and put up for adoption when Doctors see fit. It actually makes sense for the gov't to back and consider funding this plan. Why? Well, these are future tax payers. Not only that, they are future entrants into our labor markets. We are in deep amount of debt and this could help. Lastly, perhaps there would be a way for the government to be compensated for the incubation period, so they wouldn't lose anything on their investment. So the question is....Would you support this, if it was feasible?If not, why not?
First of all.
The technology is not in place to actually acomplish this; so it's kind of like Sci-Fi at this point.
But anyways...
A procedure like this would probably cost a small fortune and would likely be out of the reach of most of demographic of pregnant mothers likely to seek an abortion.
And you expect the government to fund this? on the sole believe that this child will survive the incubation perriod and become a "good" taxpayer? The government would never back this procedure based on the "risk" factor alone.
This is really just a scientific theory that has no proven ability to actually work. In fact the theory has been refuted based on the risk factor to the child alone.
The 1-2 month perriod of Pregnancy is the single most important and risky time of child development. Dettaching the Fetus from the Mother at this time could have major lasting health and development risks.
So we save the child...but highten the risk of producing under-developed and potentially challenged children.
Not to be callus but this won't exactly save taxpayers any money.
Maybe with all that education, you've forgotten your common sense.
You are comparing suicide rates of people who are alive to fetuses, who have no cognitive brain function until the third trimester. Please think this through.
My point is that 99% of all people do not wish to kill themselves. You are saying that the fetus "may want to kill itself". That requires the fetus to have "thought", and also makes them alive. If they are alive and have thought, and we already know they are human... they will follow the same trends as I already mentioned within a small range of error. Thus, if that's the case, it can be logically assumed that less than 1% of all fetus would want to kill themselves. lol this is crazy.
What if (yes it's a what if question, sorry) we could extract a fetus at any time during a preganacy? The most you'd have to wait is up 1-2 months (most women just find out they are preganant around that time) to get it extracted. So the procedure is most likely similar to an abortion. Once the baby is extracted, it is placed in incubation and put up for adoption when Doctors see fit. It actually makes sense for the gov't to back and consider funding this plan. Why? Well, these are future tax payers. Not only that, they are future entrants into our labor markets. We are in deep amount of debt and this could help. Lastly, perhaps there would be a way for the government to be compensated for the incubation period, so they wouldn't lose anything on their investment.
So the question is....
Would you support this, if it was feasible?
If not, why not?
Less costly and with a more immediate result; just let a bunch of young immigrants into the country.
My point is that 99% of all people do not wish to kill themselves. You are saying that the fetus "may want to kill itself". That requires the fetus to have "thought", and also makes them alive. If they are alive and have thought, and we already know they are human... they will follow the same trends as I already mentioned within a small range of error. Thus, if that's the case, it can be logically assumed that less than 1% of all fetus would want to kill themselves. lol this is crazy.
I am not saying anything. I'm not saying they are thinking. I am not saying anything.
All I am saying is you are comparing the suicide rates of adults to fetuses in the womb. I wish I knew how to bold that statement. I'm hoping you're just trying to make a point, and if so, go for it. If you really believe this, as I said, please think this through.
Increasing our popuation growth is not a bad thing./quote]
I'm sorry
But that is the single most naive statement I've ever heard.
Increased Population of Humans is one the biggest problems facing this planet today. Look at the damage we have done to the planet already. Look at the way we pollute in order to sustain ourselvs on this planet. We are bleeding it dry.
I still can't figure out where we have gotten this notion that it's a woman's "right" to have an abortion. Please someone explain this to me. As far as I can tell, abortion is murder. It is a human being. Even if not from the moment of conception, within a few months the embryo is without a doubt a living human, with a beating heart and functioning brain. As much as it may be an "inconvenience" that you're pregnant, you have no right to deny someone else's right to life, a choice that they cannot make for themselves. If we cannot guarantee that a person's right to life is protected from before they are even born, then we are essentially jeopardizing every person's right to life. I've heard stories where a baby was born extremely premature (like 2 months early, or something) and the hospital did everything it could to save the baby. Meanwhile, someone like Barack Obama would support another baby being aborted at the exact same age. Would we ever think to not do everything possible to save the premature baby? Why then allow a different baby at the same age to be legally killed?
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
What if (yes it's a what if question, sorry) we could extract a fetus at any time during a preganacy? The most you'd have to wait is up 1-2 months (most women just find out they are preganant around that time) to get it extracted. So the procedure is most likely similar to an abortion. Once the baby is extracted, it is placed in incubation and put up for adoption when Doctors see fit. It actually makes sense for the gov't to back and consider funding this plan. Why? Well, these are future tax payers. Not only that, they are future entrants into our labor markets. We are in deep amount of debt and this could help. Lastly, perhaps there would be a way for the government to be compensated for the incubation period, so they wouldn't lose anything on their investment.
So the question is....
Would you support this, if it was feasible?
If not, why not?
as I was reading this all I could think of was the big incubators in The Matrix
"Without the album covers, where do you clean your pot?" - EV
Saveduplife, is this what your user name refers to? A saved up life? You've really been thinking about this for a while, eh?
His name is actually saveuplife not saved up life. When I see his name it makes me think of the lyrics from Light Years "no time to be void, or SAVE UP ON LIFE, ahh, you gotta spend it all..." That's my assumption.
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
Meanwhile, someone like Barack Obama would support another baby being aborted at the exact same age. Would we ever think to not do everything possible to save the premature baby? Why then allow a different baby at the same age to be legally killed?
You should educate yourself before you have an opinion on it.
Senator Obama doesnt support a woman having an abortion at 7 months or 8 months pregnant just because she feels like it he does support it if the mother's health is in danger BIG DIFFERENCE .... woman walking into a clinic at 7 months wanting an abortion Senators Obama says NO woman in a hospital and baby needs to be aborted so mother doesn't die yes.
READ people READ!!! Dont just repeat stuff you hear like sheep! :rolleyes:
"Without the album covers, where do you clean your pot?" - EV
You should educate yourself before you have an opinion on it.
Senator Obama doesnt support a woman having an abortion at 7 months or 8 months pregnant just because she feels like it he does support it if the mother's health is in danger BIG DIFFERENCE .... woman walking into a clinic at 7 months wanting an abortion Senators Obama says NO woman in a hospital and baby needs to be aborted so mother doesn't die yes.
READ people READ!!! Dont just repeat stuff you hear like sheep! :rolleyes:
Fine.
Regardless, the overall point of my post still stands. Abortion is not a "right" anymore than it's someone's "right" to kill someone for whatever reason.
When it comes to the health of the mother, I will concede, because in that case it would be an issue of the lesser of two evils. Is it worse that the mother should die or the baby should die? That's a question that needs to be addressed and decided with the utmost care at the time.
But there are still thousands of abortions every year which have nothing to do with the mother's life being in danger which need to be addressed.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
I still can't figure out where we have gotten this notion that it's a woman's "right" to have an abortion. Please someone explain this to me. As far as I can tell, abortion is murder. It is a human being. Even if not from the moment of conception, within a few months the embryo is without a doubt a living human, with a beating heart and functioning brain. As much as it may be an "inconvenience" that you're pregnant, you have no right to deny someone else's right to life, a choice that they cannot make for themselves. If we cannot guarantee that a person's right to life is protected from before they are even born, then we are essentially jeopardizing every person's right to life. I've heard stories where a baby was born extremely premature (like 2 months early, or something) and the hospital did everything it could to save the baby. Meanwhile, someone like Barack Obama would support another baby being aborted at the exact same age. Would we ever think to not do everything possible to save the premature baby? Why then allow a different baby at the same age to be legally killed?
It is illegal to abort a baby after the point at which it is 'viable' as a self-sufficient person. Until this point it is part of the mother and couldn't survive separate from the mother, therefore it's definitely her right. It's not a life of it's own. You could make a case that after this point it would be murder, although I'd disagree, but before this point, it's not. It's really, really not. Cognitive brain processes don't even start until after the stage past which abortion is illegal. You're terminating something that is no more a life than a plant.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
Comments
99% of all people want to live. The other less than 1% kill themselves.
If I was able to suspend my disbelief enough that foster care, private and public alike, could be about a hundred times less shitty than they are now, and if they were able to find about one million more supportive families PER YEAR to take the child that would have been otherwise aborted, then I would begin to accept your notion. But I don't have that active an imagination.
We'd have to build a whole hell of a lot of new hospitals to support this idea. Not to mention all the hospital staff that many say we don't have enough of already. Once again, quite costly...
(If we had the resources to build more hospitals & train/hire more staff, shouldn't we be doing this already considering the unmet need of the people who are already born?)
Um again. You're confused. This doesn't have anything to do with Malthus. Had China not instated the one child policy, they would have imploded as a country, unable to support the exponential growth they were experiencing in 1960s. Had that gone unchecked for the last 40 years, they would have been toast and unfortunately, the rest of the world would have to had to bear the consequences of the sheer numbers.
No, my name refers to a PJ lyric in light years. lol
But, nice try.
We should harvest the unborn because we can't stop spending money? Because we've bankrupted social security? We can't seem to generate enough tax revenue, so we should just get more people? To offset the cost of developing this technology, caring for these children while they remain unadopted--like so many children who are already alive and living and desperately in need of someone to love and care for them--to cover their health benefits, and any other of the listless ways we seem to be relying on the government economically, in the hopes that some twenty years later they will pay for a college education, work their way out of debt, and then begin to pay down all the money we've mismanaged is ridiculous, cruel, and seriously lacking in any level of respect for the "sanctity of life."
If our tax problem is that for every dollar thrown in, we're spending a buck fifty...adding more dollars doesn't get us even. If the problem was we didn't have enough workers right now we could loosen restrictions on immigration.
Here's a better proposal: Mandatory abortions. No making new people until we sort out the billions already alive who struggle everyday for basic necessities.
Woops.
No, I'm not. Read Malthus and read the criticism of his work.
There's a steady state growth rate for everything. Our population is growing below it. As is Europe.
Increasing our popuation growth is not a bad thing. If it was ridiculously excessive, yes, maybe. But, this example would not lead to a ridiculously excessive increase.
Our population is held up right now by the baby boom generation. When their generation passes on, we will most likely see a significant decline in population growth.
Look at it this way.
Population cohorts:
Age 1-20 has 10 people
Age 20-40 has 8 people
Age 40-60 has 14 people
Age 60-100 has 10 people
When the last two brackets die off, we'll have plenty of jobs and not enough people. Also, as that 3rd bracket retires, we can't pay all these entitlements. because there's not large enough of a tax base.
You'll see the gov't WILL institute population GROWTH policies.... these will happen very very soon.
You have ABSOLUTELY NO basis to state that 99% of fetuses want to live. (And I don't think you even have basis for stating that 99% of people want to live either.)
I do have a basis. Suicide statistics.
Suicides of fetuses?
Plus, plenty of people don't want to live who don't take an active enough role to kill themselves. Plenty more would have chosen to never be born, if given that choice.
Alright, I'm half running out the door, so I don't have time to check some census information that would surely be pertinent to the conversation...
But what happens then when those numbers shift. The last two brackets die and we have even more people retiring, so we need even more people to pay for them, who in turn need even more people to pay for them...
At what point does that become unsustainable? Does it not make more sense for us to develop a long-term sustainable system for keeping our economy afloat and our retired population comfortably cared for?
Also, what are your thoughts on allowing higher levels of immigration to supplement the workforce (if you still believe adding more people to the bottom of this pyramid is the right solution)? The payoff would be more immediate, yes? Instead of waiting twenty or so years for our future workers to "mature" and incurring all of the costs associated with getting them to that stage...aren't there ready-made brown people over the age of 18 looking to pitch in?
Well then that is based on the assumption that those are going to commit suicide will commit suicide no matter what; that it's "genetics", and that external factors do not contribute to the decision to take that action. Good attempt, though.
Not an attempt at all. The statistic doesn't reference any specific person. It says 99% of people do not kill themselves. Clearly, that less than 1% doesn't like life. That's why they do what they do. If you expect the figures to change by a large margin even though they've been in the same relative range throughout history, you don't understand statistics.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5934943&postcount=69
Maybe with all that education, you've forgotten your common sense.
You are comparing suicide rates of people who are alive to fetuses, who have no cognitive brain function until the third trimester. Please think this through.
First of all.
The technology is not in place to actually acomplish this; so it's kind of like Sci-Fi at this point.
But anyways...
A procedure like this would probably cost a small fortune and would likely be out of the reach of most of demographic of pregnant mothers likely to seek an abortion.
And you expect the government to fund this? on the sole believe that this child will survive the incubation perriod and become a "good" taxpayer? The government would never back this procedure based on the "risk" factor alone.
This is really just a scientific theory that has no proven ability to actually work. In fact the theory has been refuted based on the risk factor to the child alone.
The 1-2 month perriod of Pregnancy is the single most important and risky time of child development. Dettaching the Fetus from the Mother at this time could have major lasting health and development risks.
So we save the child...but highten the risk of producing under-developed and potentially challenged children.
Not to be callus but this won't exactly save taxpayers any money.
My point is that 99% of all people do not wish to kill themselves. You are saying that the fetus "may want to kill itself". That requires the fetus to have "thought", and also makes them alive. If they are alive and have thought, and we already know they are human... they will follow the same trends as I already mentioned within a small range of error. Thus, if that's the case, it can be logically assumed that less than 1% of all fetus would want to kill themselves. lol this is crazy.
See, if you are serious. I agree with this. But, you are probably not serious.
Less costly and with a more immediate result; just let a bunch of young immigrants into the country.
I am not saying anything. I'm not saying they are thinking. I am not saying anything.
All I am saying is you are comparing the suicide rates of adults to fetuses in the womb. I wish I knew how to bold that statement. I'm hoping you're just trying to make a point, and if so, go for it. If you really believe this, as I said, please think this through.
-Reagan
as I was reading this all I could think of was the big incubators in The Matrix
His name is actually saveuplife not saved up life. When I see his name it makes me think of the lyrics from Light Years "no time to be void, or SAVE UP ON LIFE, ahh, you gotta spend it all..." That's my assumption.
You should educate yourself before you have an opinion on it.
Senator Obama doesnt support a woman having an abortion at 7 months or 8 months pregnant just because she feels like it he does support it if the mother's health is in danger BIG DIFFERENCE .... woman walking into a clinic at 7 months wanting an abortion Senators Obama says NO woman in a hospital and baby needs to be aborted so mother doesn't die yes.
READ people READ!!! Dont just repeat stuff you hear like sheep! :rolleyes:
Fine.
Regardless, the overall point of my post still stands. Abortion is not a "right" anymore than it's someone's "right" to kill someone for whatever reason.
When it comes to the health of the mother, I will concede, because in that case it would be an issue of the lesser of two evils. Is it worse that the mother should die or the baby should die? That's a question that needs to be addressed and decided with the utmost care at the time.
But there are still thousands of abortions every year which have nothing to do with the mother's life being in danger which need to be addressed.
-Reagan