The article does not put forth any suggestion as to a solution. It says both sides should consider the other sides´ point of view. I don´t think any compromise can be made. The baby cannot be half alive or half dead.

50,000,000 innocent, defenseless babies dead and counting. Blood money. My heart continues to break. Pharoah and Caeser Augustus and satan are so proud. :weeping:

Jeremiah 31:15 (NIV), also referenced in Matthew 2:18 - This is what the Lord says: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.”

Interesting that the NY Times used the language of Hitler, when he talked about his plan to exterminate the Jews. A final solution to the issue of abortion. Nice, NYTimes. Nice.

When the issue of abortion gets mixed up with rape and contraception those who oppose abortion lose the battle.

One thing that has always puzzled me. If someone kills a pregnant woman, they are often charged with two deaths; the mother and the unborn child. How do the courts explain the difference between that and the murder of an unborn child by abortion, which, in their eyes, is legal?
I´m confused, and have been foe 40 years.

So what´s so hard to understand about the wholesale slaughter of nearly 55,000,000 innocent helpless souls since 1973?

It´s called mass murder, on a scale never before seen in human history, going on daily in the "Good Ole" US of A," at a "clinic" near you!

#5 What the court has basically said is that only the mother has the right to kill their unborn child. They just will not say so in language that is easily understood.

Yesterday I stumbled on a program about the argument in the SC on Roe V Wade.

The attorney for Roe, a lady by the name of Weddington, was totally prepared and argued the various points exceptionally, unlike the 2 defense attys, Flowers and I forget the other´s name.

The questions from the Justices were very telling and exposed the mindset they were approaching the subject with.

Need to research and find info on the program.

#5, the bottom line is this - if the mother wants it, it´s a human being. If she doesn´t want it, it´s not, and can therefore be dismembered and dumped in the trash.

"a large swath of American society believes a woman’s right to choose is sacrosanct."

This is simply untrue. A large swath of American society believes that abortion should be curbed in the 97% of the cases when abortion occurs: that is, in the cases that do not involve rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

A large swath of Americans believe that there should be "woman´s right to know" --- informed consent --- which includes seeing a sonogram of the developing child and seeing his heart rate and brain waves.

A large swath of Americans believe there should be parental consent, i.e. high-schoolers should not be able to abort their babies in secret without telling their parents, who remain morally and legally responsible for their daughters´ well-being and medical care.

A large swath of Americans believe that if babies are going to be killed in the case of rape and incest, the rapist/incestuous adult should be criminally prosecuted as part of the deal; unlike now, where abortion is used as a way to shield the sexual predator from detection.

Even the majority of "pro-choice" Americans believe it is wrong to kill the baby at some point (e.g. after the onset of heartbeat, or brain waves, or pain sensitivity) or for some reasons (e.g. for the purpose of eliminating girls).

If someone -- say, the clueless Republicans --- were to present the case to Americans in these terms, we could see a huge reduction in the bloody body-count.

Isn´t it time now? It´s been 40 years.