Do you understand that they don't want someone who is responsible for the baby to kill it? I don't assume support of someone else's baby just because I don't want to kill it?
If I don't want you to kill Assup, does that mean I have to take care of him for the next 18 years?
The fucking parents are responsible for their kids....if not, next in line are the grandparents, if they can.
Then, a fucking orphanage......more soup please!!!!
Originally Posted by DSK
There is already a method. It's called adoption.
You can't legally kill a human being just because you don't want him around.
An interesting part about NARAL's objection is that the baby at full-term. The doctor says Any minute now. Even when a kid is just about to enter the world, pro-abortionists still can't call it a baby.
Why hasn't the right come up with a law? Because, so far, the right is not the progressive left who thinks that every aspect of life should some how be tied to government. You know the reverse of your argument? That the right (in appreciation of the left way of doing things) puts women (and men) in jail for creating an "unwanted" child. I guess that would make the left happy for the government to take on the role of guardian to everyone.
As for as NARAL's actions, just go to show you how evil they are. That they consider an abortion on a baby that is about to be born and not to consider it human.
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
You didn't say anything that isn't already in place. Yes, either the parents, grandparents, or taxpayers will support the unwanted kids if not adopted. I was asking why the Repubs haven't passed anything new, or what I thought would be more important to Repubs, why they keep funding abortion clinics with taxpayer dollars now that they have full control of both houses? It's okay if you don't have anything, it wasn't a pass or fail question, just a curiosity if anybody had a suggestion to perhaps change the SCOTUS ruling one day.
