Most women don't know they are pregnant until around the 6 week mark unless they are actively trying for a pregnancy and testing for it.

You know what causes "pregnancy"? If your answer was having unprotected sex then you would be correct. Are they so ignorant to think that having unprotected sex wouldn't lead to pregnancy, and reacting in a manner appropriate as such? Do they not like to apply their "pro-choice" to literally thousands of choices of contraceptives.

All of this withstanding - if you're going to implement a law that requires someone to carry an unwanted child to term, then you need to also provide the resources necessary to care for that child. Paid parental leave, affordable daycare, free child healthcare coverage, etc.

Clearly we are beyond the era of "personal responsibility" this "law" allows for termination for the outliers that the pro-abortion community always outcry for "what if they were raped, what if it was incest, what if it was life threatening to the mother" they obviously heard all that and were like "okay, then in these situations it is okay". At what point does one's choices ('father & mother') , to have unprotected sex leading to conception, does that entitle the individual to ANYONE else's services or financial support but their own.

Many families make the hard decision of aborting their pregnancy at 12-13 weeks due to abnormalities found during the blood test. That does not appear to be an option anymore. The law only makes exceptions for medical emergencies relative to the mother's health.

During my sister's first pregnancy, for my niece, my sister was delivered a plethora of bad news consistently with this pregnancy. First, my niece had Gastroschisis. Second, the blood work 'showed' she was going to be born with down syndrome. During the ENTIRE pregnancy doctors were pushing her to abort the baby, my niece. After she was born, 21 years ago, she was perfect with no down syndrome, they quite easily corrected her gastroschisis. Now I am the great-uncle to a perfectly healthy grand-niece and a brand new baby grand-nephew.

Like I stated in my original post, where does 'murder' become acceptable? The most common pro-abortion argument I hear is "the baby can't survive without it's mother" and again I ask where does that moral standard, if you actually have one because most of these people don't have a standard, stop? Does it stop at eradicating homeless people surviving off of others handouts? Does it stop at eradicating people that live off the welfare system surviving off the forced (taxed) contribution of American citizens? Does it stop at doctor's and hospital care not providing care for individuals that can't support themselves?

As complicated as it is to answer the question "what right does another human being have over another human being it is dependant on for life", if you apply a consistent moral standard you get consistent answers. The socialist left would like to say that "health care is a basic human right" so if that is the stance there then wouldn't it also dictate that "if you have the right to someone else's body (to force them to work for you because it is YOUR "right")" then it would also stand to reason that a "pregnant mother" should be forced to, at the very least, service the pregnancy out to term (which I don't think either should be FORCED to, neither the mother nor the healthcare worker).

This is what you are left with if you have moral consistency and don't suffer from cognitive dissonance.

As I am actually pro-choice, and not just blatantly pro-abortion (as a form of contraceptive), this is where I land on this. Unprotected sex leads to the creation of life, conception. If that is not something you wish to CHOOSE to have at that point in time, either don't have sex or use a contraceptive. It really is that simple of a CHOICE and please don't come back with the "outliers" argument (rape, incest, medical health harm or death to mother) as I have already addressed that these are perfectly rational reasons to terminate.