In response to:

Roe v. Wade at 40

None1257 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 1:56 PM
Why would a conservative advocate "forcing" pregnant women to view an ultra sound of the baby inside of them, when they were against "forcing" people to have health insurance?
Chries Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 3:18 PM
At least you put "forcing" in quotes. Sometimes, even YOU get something right...
Andy544 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 2:11 PM
Life is a gift from God, and our 'health' is a gift from God. Requiring pregnant women to view an ultra sound of their baby requires those women to consider the fact they are contemplating killing a living human being who is temporarily residing within their body. Requiring people who do not believe in the methods, drugs, or practices of modern medicine to purchase (and use) said health care, is a violation of their religious beliefs and personal rights of faith and conscience. It is but a short step from requiring someone to purchase something, to requiring them to 'use' it. The 1st 'requirement' is in DEFENSE of LIFE; the 2nd 'requirement' is an infringement upon CONSCIENCE and FREEDOM. Does that help?

At last week's signing of "executive actions" designed to combat gun violence in America, President Obama, flanked by schoolchildren, said, "...when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable among us, we must act now."

There's no doubt that children, especially schoolchildren, are vulnerable to all kinds of threats, but are they "the most vulnerable," as the president claimed, or is there another category of human life that qualifies for that designation?

Forty years after a Supreme Court majority opened the door to legalized abortion, the number of aborted babies has reached roughly 55 million....