Comment: Correct

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Do you not see... (see in situ)

Correct

But Holder was a moron, and clearly has a NWO, population reduction agenda. The arguments they provide are patently ridiculous, and could even extend to some 40 year olds I know.

The arguments you provide are compelling, but I suggest they support exactly what I'm saying, that to legislate that invites the same tyranny in reverse.

I'm not in favor of abortion, so you don't have to argue to convince me it's bad. I don't argue in favor of it. My hypothesis is that, as a society, we do not need the governmental rules dictating behavior in that area.

I'm not for listening to the government about the issue in ANY way.
The links you provide indicate that they are monsters, bent on population control. I reject the arguments those are suggesting, as I think any moral person would. And an “after-birth” abortion is just ridiculous (and murder), as anyone can see (IMO).

Science can determine "viability" of the fetus outside the mother’s body, only. If the fetus cannot live outside the mother, it’s not viable. Yes, there are some, even 40 year olds, that arguably, aren't "viable", but, again, it’s a straw man. Even from the PTB.

To allow the government to have any say simply invites them to make arbitrary rules. What if a woman doesn’t take care of her body during the critical periods for the fetus? Doesn’t it deserve more protection than just the right to exist? If a moral person can’t see that, should there be morality laws? If society is so immoral that it must have laws to legislate its morality, is that society worth saving at all?

Don't blame the government for what’s going on now, its society. It’s becoming a non-moral society (some would argue this is DUE to the government interference). If the state of society IS the governments fault, people want to give them more power? hmmm...
Maybe it’s just the old human failing of wanting to pass and assign blame?

And, with an attempt to make this a LAW, from this corrupted government? They use whatever tools and concepts they have to control people, not protect them. This would not protect anyone; just add a level of control to the government tool box. How are they going to use it? Perhaps, the current administration will use it wisely, how about the next? And the next?

This is accepting moral leadership from the government. And they are a good moral leader why?

I don't get my definition of human from the government or governmental agents, and I suggest that no one should.

We are on the same side in this, in fact. I'm just arguing that the federal government has no place in the decision, period.

The issue is about control and power. A LAW ignores the fringe cases. If a woman is raped, under the LAW, she MUST carry the fetus to term, no choice. Having lots of experience being on the fringe, I know that they deserve protection too.

It would be far better if society could get control of this problem WITHOUT government interference.

Just open the box and see