Your browser is blocking the Transact payments script
Transact.io respects your privacy, does not display advertisements, and does not sell your data.
To enable payment or login you will need to allow scripts from transact.io.
How ironic that you would run a photo of Norma McCorvey in the Voice “Threats to Roe v. Wade.” As the “Jane Roe” in Roe v. Wade, McCorvey later became an anti-abortion advocate and admitted that Roe was “the biggest mistake of [her] life.”
It’s not surprising. We all began life with our unique DNA protected by nature’s original EPA: our mother’s womb. The science is simple. Every new human life begins at conception and needs environmental protection for nine months. Unfortunately, the politics are not quite as simple as the obvious scientific facts.
Is it possible for Pro-Life and Pro-Choice advocates to come to a reasonable compromise on the issue? I think so. Women should always have the right to choose before they become pregnant. Unfortunately, in the case of incest or rape, those choices are too often and very sadly taken away from them. If Pro-Life advocates would be willing to sacrifice the very small percentage of newly conceived human beings resulting from rape or incest in order to save the much larger percentage currently lost to deadly choices, we might transform the political bickering into a greater concern for the least and most defenseless among us. If they aren’t willing to sacrifice the few for the many, the status quo will continue, and millions of additional lives will be lost.
If we are concerned about the temporary separation of parents from their children at the border, we should be doubly concerned about permanently separating children from their parents at an abortion clinic.