Aborting a tumor?

In trying to justify abortion, some argue “That is not a baby in the womb.  It is not a baby until it is born.”  Question:  Then what is it?  An amorphous mass like a tumor?  It’s of no more consequence to remove it than to remove a tumor?  Think seriously.  It moves.  It responds to stimuli.  It will eventually BE a baby, a child, a teenager, an adult, a parent, a grandparent.

Question to abortion rights advocates: Why would a woman want to abort her child?”

Answers are basically the same; “She can’t take care of it.”  “Having a baby would be inconvenient.”

Question: “Then by that logic, is it okay for a mother to kill a month-old child because she can’t take care of it or it is inconvenient?”


Finish the sentence for me;

It’s okay to kill a baby in the womb when…….

It’s justifiable to kill that baby in the womb because of…..

Abortionists are justifying murder.  It’s as simple as that.  Their “right to choose” ended when they exercised their right to engage in unprotected sex.  Choices have consequences.

Killing a baby will have eternal consequences.

About Jonesy

Born and raised in Arizona. I've lived in Wyoming since 1983, currently in Jackson Hole. A lifetime of working with horses, taking tourists on trails in the high mountains, including scenic summer trips and fall hunting. I owned a gun shop for 5 years. I owned numerous other businesses over the decades. Active in conservative politics. So my "Cowboy Common Sense" draws on a LOT of life experiences.

Comments are closed.