Just another example...

[kshillbillys]

Well, one more point...The GOVERNMENT decided Abortion was A-OK, that a woman could MURDER a baby. But the GOVERNMENT won't let people do drugs, or drive a car without a seatbelt, or drink and drive cuz we might HURT or KILL ourselves or someone else! What's the FREAKING difference? I mean hell if we can kill babies, then why are people on death row for killing adults? Makes no sense.

RIDDLE ME THIS....WHY was Scott Petersen found guilty of 2, count them 2, counts of murder when it was just his wife and some collection of cells that he murdered? Laci and CONNER Petersen...Why was he found guilty of TWO counts of MURDER?

AND a little closer to home...why is there now Alexa's law in the state of Kansas where it's a crime to kill a mother AND unborn child? That's the case in 35 states in this country now....

[jerry wagner]

The reason these laws exist is that they are an attempt to create a slippery slope by those who oppose a women's right to choose.  They believe that by additional in fetal rights in various laws they begin to create a legal standing for the fetus.

[Diane Amberg]

Billy, I finally had a moment to read those articles you posted. Very interesting ,but it's sadly very rare, that's why it was written. Unfortunately one cannot repair a ventricle that doesn't exist. A 20% chance of survival isn't much, but I'm glad they tried. I had a friend whose baby was developing with its organs outside the body, long enough ago that they couldn't fix it like they sometimes can now. The organs were developing poorly and were going to be useless. She had a spontaneous abortion before she could decide what she wanted to do. Very sad. Her own body disowned the child...is that murder too? KS, wasn't Laci Peterson's baby 7 months along? That is a viable baby and should count as two homicides. And my comments are my opinion only, they don't mean to suggest that other opinions are wrong, just different.

[kshillbillys]

I just seriously don't understand why the age of the BABY has to play a role. A BABY is a BABY! 7 months doesn't make a difference in the case of someone killing the mother. The laws state that when a woman is pregnant and she is murdered it is considered murder for both, whether she's 7 months, full term or 1 month along!

A spontaneous abortion where the body rejects the child is to me God's way of taking care of the situation. PEOPLE should NOT play GOD!

Don't play with fire and you won't get burned....

[Wilma]

Isn't birth control playing with God's decisions?

[flo]

Outlaw guns and you WILL NOT stop crime.  Outlaw abortion and you WILL NOT stop abortions.  You only move them to the back room of some filthy backstreet building.

[Wilma]

Right on, flo.

[Catwoman]

Amen, Flo!

[kshillbillys]

I don't believe birth control is playing with God's decisions either. Birth control is a wonderful PREVENTATIVE measure until the woman is READY for a baby. Birth control is NOT permanent! Murder is permanent.

I told myself at work today that I was not going to get into this tonight because I just want to scream over this subject. But here I am, because as I stated in another post I am a sh*t starter. An innocent baby should NOT be slaughtered just because some slutty woman can't keep her legs together. No one will change my mind on that. If there's something wrong with the baby, God will take care of it. If a woman is raped, maybe. I just have a hard time with murdering an innocent baby when so many people would adopt it and LOVE it, no matter how it was conceived.

I must go take a blood pressure pill or something now or I'm gonna end up having a stroke and end up a vegetable and then you all will be screaming, unplug her, she wouldn't want to live that way!

[Varmit]

Ok, the issue here it seems is that to classify a "fetus" as a baby it must be viable, meaning it must be able to survive on its own.  With that being said I will state a question that no one has given an answer to, other than "thats different."  If we are allowed by law to kill something that isn't viable, why can't we include old people who cannot survive on their own?  Or anyone of any age?  Without giving them a choice.  For example, an elderly woman, who must have somone look after her (dementia, or whatever) but whose childern do not want the responsibilty of either doing it personaly or financialy, instead they opt to just kill her.  How is that any different from a woman who doesn't want the responsibilty of raising a child and has it legally killed?