That's still my point. It wasn't ALWAYS set up that way and private charity absolutely positively by every measure and study could not keep up with need.
As far as charities using money wisely. Some do some don't. It's not unusual to see stories on TV involving charities & nonprofits.
And while it's true that there is going to be some amount more administration costs in a large national program it's also not nearly as hit & miss as depending on a thousands of independent charities with rules & guidelines all over the board.
A moral dilemma is a personal problem... not a warrant to just disobey the law, take the law into ones own hands and become judge, jury and hangman (or in this case bomber or sniper)to those not breaking the law but to whom you disagree with.
I can see how some could extrapolate to that conclusion. But it really isn't as close as you might think. There are major differences.
A third party in a violent act killing a woman who is pregnant also killing the fetus... or even just killing the fetus against the will of the woman is an understandable punishment upgrade. The third party criminal has no right to deprive the woman of her life nor her child.
A woman not wanting to be forced to carry a child to term for any number of reasons an choosing to terminate her own pregnancy is something quite different.
We have to remember this is the woman's body to which without it the embryo's cells will not continue to multiple & divide and eventually come to a birth @ terms end. The woman has always controlled this.
To me the ways up until 1973 of throwing ones self down a flight of stairs, jamming a coat hanger up inside themselves or drinking drain cleaner was not the better way to address an early unwanted pregnancy.
.
I never thought you were for hurting anyone... but some definitely have & are.
And lobbying by anti-Choice groups that's been going on all through Roe's almost 4 decade precedent through Democratic & Republican control. The fact is if you look at the voting make up of the country with women being such a strong bock it would do no good anyway to overturn Roe.
With light speed there would be a Constitutional Amendment put forward guaranteeing a woman's reproductive rights and 9 out of every 10 politicians that stood against it would be on their very last term. Of this I have no doubt.
But you don't know which 1%. Forcing women that are already going through a lot of emotional stress to lie does not make the situation better. And who knows how many women don't report rape & incest out of shame or threat of violence.
While it's true most abortions are done because a woman just simply does not want to carry a child to term... only they really know who they are.
Well the majority of Americans and the Supreme Court sees the whole question in a different light.
As far as when life starts it's really more of a personhood question. When do growing cells that could not live on their own, and may or may not naturally make it to live birth, become a person. And that legal line has been drawn.
That legal line is known as viability. When it would be reasonable to believe the fetus could live outside the womb. And that seems reasonable to me.
Anything other than that and the religious opinions swing around all over the place as to when life starts. For instance in the Jewish faith life is said to start at "crowning" when the baby is being born.
I think viability gives the woman enough time to decide and still puts a time limit on how advanced she can be. Of course no time limit stops an abortion if life of the mother is in question. No one has to die to have a child.
