One way liberals try to protect the children is by taking guns away from law-abiding citizens, or at least placing restrictions on magazines and gun purchases. Another way they protect children is by giving women the right to murder their unborn child, thus protecting that child from a potential life of hardship in this cruel world filled with gun violence.
Since New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo has been successful at passing more stringent gun laws to protect the kids, he’s now pushing the Reproductive Health Act, which will allow abortion after the 24th week of pregnancy, which is currently the threshold in New York. A woman can have an abortion after that threshold only if it is to save her life. The New York Civil Liberties Union stated:
“Sometimes a pregnancy puts a woman’s health and life at risk. When this happens – often late in a pregnancy – a woman is faced with the difficult decision of whether to have an abortion in order to protect her own health. This difficult, personal decision should be made by a woman and her doctor, not politicians in Washington or Albany. Currently, New York criminalizes abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy, unless a woman’s life is at risk. New York law does not make the same, constitutionally required exception when a woman’s health is at risk.”
“Constitutionally required?” Where in the Constitution does it allow murdering someone as long as a doctor says that doing so would save the life of someone else? And how many abortions are done supposedly to protect the life of the mother or her health? I’ve seen ranges anywhere from .004% to 5% of abortions are done reportedly to protect the mother’s life. The vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with health and livelihood even according to the doctors that perform them.
The Association of Pro-Life Physicians (APLP) say that there is never an instance where murdering an unborn child is medically necessary. Even if the mother’s life is in jeopardy, this doesn’t justify murder:
“Let us illustrate this principle further: if a rescuer is venturing into a burning vehicle to try to save its injured occupants, and is only able to save one of the two occupants, is it justifiable for him to then take out his gun and shoot the occupant he was unable to save? Of course not! Intentionally killing those you were not able to save is never justified in healthcare. We have the technology and expertise to provide quality healthcare to a pregnant woman without intentionally killing her unborn baby, regardless of the severity of her disease.”
Most abortions are done simply because it’s the mother’s or someone else’s choice. Maybe she didn’t want to get pregnant. Maybe her baby has a deformity. And their solution is to just kill the child. Would they support killing an infant because he has a deformity? How about if the infant is causing the mother’s health to decline? What’s the difference?
The so-called Reproductive Health Act would allow late-term abortions for whatever reason the mother or doctor can think of. It has nothing to do with health or saving lives. They claim that abortions at any stage can save the life of the mother, but as the APLP say, “A murderer of one person is not any less a murderer if he allows thousands to live, nor if he saves thousands from dying!”