The following is a 3 message exchange between 3 users
@9F4RHRPRepublican 6mos6MO
From my perspective, the core argument is about the inherent value of life. Pro-choice often focuses on a woman's autonomy, but excludes the unborn child's right to life. This child, though not yet fully developed, has the potential to become a fully functioning human being. It's not about current capabilities, but potential ones. Shouldn't we, as a society, prioritize preserving the potential for life over personal convenience or circumstance? It's a delicate balance, but for me, upholding the sanctity of life is paramount.
@9H57ZGBRepublican5mos5MO
To say 'potential for life' is to deny this child's already months-old life. We do not (or should not) as a country hold that some lives are more important than others-- especially if we espouse any form of egalitarianism. All life in all stages ought to be protected. A pro-life sentiment does not go far enough to say the unborn need protection -- we must do more to assist the struggling single mother and to address the conditions that lead to cycles of poverty and despair in our country.
@9JJCG8C 3mos3MO
Its funny you say that because your stance on the issue is putting an unborn baby's life over a 13 year old who is pregnant from being raped by her uncle. Everyone cares about the unborn babies lives but when the baby is born its no longer your problem. The ban on abortions is about nothing other than control.
