Guzzi, forget religion for awhile. My BIL was pro-choice until he studied the development of the human embryo. He is a college professor in organic chemistry. He came to the conclusion that the fertilized egg, once attached to the uterian wall, was indeed, a seperate, individual human life. He therefore became pro-life.
Next is my belief. I do not believe I should pay for anyones health care if it involves something that is preventable. Birth control, abortions, AIDS, Sexually transmitted disease, lung cancer from smoking, and/or liver failure from alcohol. All these are preventable and should be taken care of by the person responsible. There must be personal responsibility. If you start adding obese persons, then very few can be taken care of by my money. Therefore health insurance or health in general is a personal responsibility and not a government or my responsibility. In 1960 we had 80% of Americans insured by medical insurance. 13% were poor, the other 7% chose not to be insured for one reason or another. It was not then nor now my responsibility to cover the 7%. Medicare and Medicaid was and is enough for the poor and elderly. 85% of the uninsured were between 21-35, young, and didn't want to bother with buying it from their employers. The rest were unemployed and lost what they had at their jobs.
Lowering manufacturing taxes and regulations will help business and industry start hireing people. They provide insurance, and their workers provide taxes, so this is the solution, not free health care, because nothing is really free. Another is to use tarriffs on goods imported where the country of origin either subsidises the industry or doesn't have child labor laws, minimum wage laws, or work week hours similar to ours. It isn't fair for our industry to compete with such. Also if it can or was made here, it can and should come back home. This would solve most of our nations ills. More taxes from workers. Workers in the middle class. Health care provided by the employers. Ross Perot was right, once the Free Trade (not fair trade) laws were put into effect, 50% of the manufacturing jobs were lost, which translates to about 4-5% of the unemployment would bring back the 80% of people insured instead of about 60%.
That being said, scientifically, religously, and morally, abortion is killing and individual human life.
One other reason, the child is a result of TWO people. The father should also have a say as to whether he wants the baby also. All these reasons add up to abortion should not be legal, and I would say if it endangered the mothers life only.
Another reason, it should be a states rights issue and not a federal.
