You do realize that banning abortions has little effect on women getting them? It just means they'd be performed by unqualified back-room physicians, putting the mother's life in danger. A truly pro-life person such as myself would push for better education (that means comprehensive sex education) and urban development, lowering unwanted pregnancies and therefore making abortions as rare but as safe as possible.
Exactly how I think. While I don't like abortions, I do support Roe as, if nothing else, it makes an abortion safer. I do support it in cases of extreme medical crises, such as the life of the baby is in danger. I believe in this case, the life of the baby slightly outweighs the life of the mother, especially if the baby can survive even if the mother's life is in danger. Of course, I want every measure to be taken to make sure that both lives are preserved and the quality of life not diminished, but the life of the baby slightly outweighs the life of the mother. I think when a woman gets pregnant, she's symbolically placing the needs of the child above most anything else, including her own. It is a really tough call, and I would not want to have to make that decision. It's easy for me to say, because I've never been faced with that decision. Armchair quarterbacking ( or in this case, armchair lawmaking) is real easy, but actually playing the game is not.
Again, as I said in my previous post, I like where the Sunflower State is coming from, but I don't really like how they are going about doing it. I think they are taking it too far, and potentially endangering the lives and health of their citizens in the process. I would support a heavily restricted abortion process, but not illegal, because it would cause many back alley abortions with unsterile and contaminated utensils.
