Mississippi governor to sign bill banning abortion at 20 weeks

[Vigilante]

Nice to see the start of trying to take back morals, ethics, and principles, along with traditional American values as to sanctioned killing of our young!

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant said Tuesday that he looks forward to quickly signing a bill that would ban abortion at 20 weeks, the midpoint of a full-term pregnancy. "This measure represents a great effort to protect the unborn in Mississippi," Bryant said in a statement after House Bill 1400 passed the House 91-20 and the Senate 41-10. The bill has exceptions. Abortion would still be allowed at or after 20 weeks if the woman faces death or permanent injury because of the pregnancy. It would also be allowed in cases of severe fetal abnormality.

Mississippi governor to sign bill banning abortion at 20 weeks | Fox News

 

[Mr. H.]

Sounds good to me.
But now the anti-lifers will only argue about all the coat-hanger abortions that will take place after 20 weeks LOL.

 

[Noomi]

Are the anti choicers willing to adopt those babies? Or pay more taxes to support them?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course not.

But conservatives are willing to expand the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[Votto]

Nice to see the start of trying to take back morals, ethics, and principles, along with traditional American values as to sanctioned killing of our young!

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant said Tuesday that he looks forward to quickly signing a bill that would ban abortion at 20 weeks, the midpoint of a full-term pregnancy. "This measure represents a great effort to protect the unborn in Mississippi," Bryant said in a statement after House Bill 1400 passed the House 91-20 and the Senate 41-10. The bill has exceptions. Abortion would still be allowed at or after 20 weeks if the woman faces death or permanent injury because of the pregnancy. It would also be allowed in cases of severe fetal abnormality.

Mississippi governor to sign bill banning abortion at 20 weeks | Fox News

When will Obama sue them?

 

[Votto]

Are the anti choicers willing to adopt those babies? Or pay more taxes to support them?

We will raise them, and then round them up and send them to Canada illegally so they can send back money to folks in the US who now can't find jobs in the Obama economy.

 

[Noomi]

Or you could just let them grow up and use them as cannon fodder in your illegal wars.

 

[Votto]

Or you could just let them grow up and use them as cannon fodder in your illegal wars.

It's like my pappy use to say, if you don't want to rais'em, kill'em!!

These crazy sentimental conservatives just get on my nerves!!

 

[Mr. H.]

Are the anti choicers willing to adopt those babies? Or pay more taxes to support them?

20 weeks. What is so difficult about that?

Roe v Wade already gave women the right to choose to kill their progeny.

Isn't that enough?

 

[Vigilante]

Are the anti choicers willing to adopt those babies? Or pay more taxes to support them?

It’s a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren?

Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).

Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

 

[Mr. H.]

Or you could just let them grow up and use them as cannon fodder in your illegal wars.

That's not an issue when the coat hanger comes out after 20 weeks LOL.

 

[Noomi]

You have no right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.

 

[Mr. H.]

Looks like my mother in law LOL.

 

[Mr. H.]

You have no right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.

Including putting a 20 week limit on it?

 

[Votto]

Are the anti choicers willing to adopt those babies? Or pay more taxes to support them?

It’s a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren?

Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).

Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Interestingly, people used to sacrifice their children to various gods around the world. For example, in the Middle East they would sacrifice their children to Molek and in South America they did the same to their gods. They would do this in order for the gods to bless them with good harvests and economic bounty.

However, then came along the God of the Bible. He told Abraham to then sacrifice his son on an alter, but then stopped him at the last minute.

Most see the story today as rather bizzare, but looking from it in the eyes of ancient man, it sent a message that this sort of behavior is no longer acceptable. No longer will people kill their offspring for economic gain in the name of God because child sacrifice is not acceptable to God. Now in a Godless world people sacrifice their children in the name of personal convenience and economic bounty.

 

[rightwinger]

They will lose in court

They always do

 

[Vigilante]

You have no right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.

The baby inside her, is NOT her, completely different DNA!

 

[Noomi]

You have no right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.

The baby inside her, is NOT her, completely different DNA!

It is attached to her and it is alive only because of her.

 

[Votto]

You have no right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.

Sure we can. We can tell her that she has to buy corporate health insurance and like it.

 

[Vigilante]

You have no right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.

The baby inside her, is NOT her, completely different DNA!

It is attached to her and it is alive only because of her.

Then why didn't the little harlot take precautions?