^Not my point of view. I work in behavioral health with children 0-5 years old--children that only qualify for my program if they receive Medicaid. I'm not into state mandated insurance, but I do believe that some sort of option should be available for everyone. Ideally that's how our system would work, with the poor qualifying for welfare, but it's inefficient, broke government trying to manage this so it never works. I hear you though. That's one reason I am a self-admitted RINO. I'm much more of a middle of the road independent in reality.
As for your previous comment, as well as Frink's held tongue (that's not like you, Frink ;), I know babies are damaging, but if you got drunk, a perfectly legal and enjoyable (to many) activity, and did something stupid that resulted in someone else living on a life support system. Now let's say that this life support system required that your body provide nutrients to this injured person (an abortion advocate created this analogy, not me, only she left out the part where you are responsible for the person being hooked up to you). Would it be right or wrong for you to disconnect yourself from this life support system and allow the other individual to die? It would certainly be damaging to you to remain on it. But you did make the choice to drink, which ultimately led to this person's needing it.
I'm sorry that God (or Mother Nature) decided that females carry the babies. Take that up with them. But instead of leveling the playing field by killing innocent children, couldn't the playing field be leveled by demanding more of irresponsible fathers?
I know that this thread will do nothing to change anyone's mind. I just will never see the logic. Injuring mothers, family economic difficulties, family contentedness, healthy sexual relationship...all very important considerations. Killing someone...oh, wow, that outweighs all other considerations to me.
I know this is long and CP3S doesn't like that, but one last thought for the day: as the baby progresses, it causes more damage to the mother's body. Yet we illegalize abortion after a certain point that most pro-choicers agree is acceptable. All the same rationales apply at this point: the damage to mom, the economic difficulties, the potential for an unwanted child...but now it's wrong to kill that baby. Why the change of heart? My point to this is that those other issues don't matter at the end of the day if we acknowledge that we are killing a person. The defining point really hinges on how we define a person then, and when an unborn human gains its humanity.