Kari Lake now says she opposes strict abortion ban ahead of Senate race - LifeSite
Kari Lake described Arizona’s 15-week abortion ban as a ‘good law,’ reversed her position on the state’s stronger near-total ban, and blasted an Alabama ruling recognizing the humanity of frozen embryos in a new interview.
Tf Kari, don't start buckling now. Not a good look.
If the frozen embryos are not human, what are they??
Puppies? Are they putting puppy embryos into their wombs to have a puppy?
[Forget I said that, don't want to give them any more insane ideas.]
They already tried pig 🐖 But I m sure money or horse could be their first choice base on mythology
But the cat ladies would want their own litter, and if they were familiar with history and mythology they wouldn't be so nuts. IMHO.
You cannot simultaneously support abortion while supporting vaccine mandates.
The opposite is also true. You can't wreck your own logic and expect people to follow it.
Looks like "they" got to her.
I do too, since people will advocate breaking laws in their home state to travel across state lines on taxpayer dimes to get it done.
Weird how their extremism just makes me form stronger opinions against them.
My thoughts are a 15 week abortion limit with exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother will thread a political needle and practically end abortion.
It will simultaneously take away the political club the Dems have wielded for decades while removing the financial incentives that made abortion an industry. As abortion becomes increasingly rare, stand-alone abortion clinics will cease to exist.
My belief is in about a decade abortions will be nearly nonexistent. Thats far less than the 50 years Roe v. Wade was in effect. And, that will be primarily due to agreeing to a compromise that cutoff the money that was laundered through pro abortion organizations and back to politicians.
Sadly, organizations on both sides of this debate, will try to keep the debate alive precisely because their financial lives depend upon it being an unsolved issue. But, that should not be surprising, both major political parties have benefited for decades by never solving problems, just promising they will.
Murder is murder. Except when it involves a defenseless victim? Except when it involves a child victim? Except when it is for monetary policy? Except when it is for political gain?
Not for political gain. The goal is to advance the culture of life. Every time we think we can swing for the fences and legislate that culture into existence, we strike out. And, the consequence is millions of babies are murdered, because we insist on taking an all or nothing approach.
It is a bitter thing knowing we live in a culture where it is impossible to save every baby. But, it is unconscionable to not save as many as we can today through legislation that the vast majority of both voting blocks will accept. That compromise will represent the largest percentage gain of the entire fight to save unborn babies.
Saving the small percentage that are still victims of abortion will require a grassroots effort to change our culture. And, I believe when the issue is seen as resolved by voters on both sides of the argument, changing the culture will become a much easier thing to do.
Still I ask under whose sovereignty do you take life away?
Whether it is your position or mine the horrible truth is the position we take will result in unborn babies being the victim of abortion. So your question applies to both of us, under whose sovereignty do we take life away?
I believe in my heart God wants us to save as many babies as possible today, and expects us to keep fighting to eventually save them all. If taking a hardline, all or nothing stance actually saved more babies I would be all for it. But, over 50 years of history shows it doesn’t.
We both want the same things, no unborn babies being the victims of abortion. Let’s keep praying we get there someday soon.
I will keep praying that God's will is done regarding this. His ways are above my understanding, and when I am allowed to see glimpses of his work on this, I am amazed. And I am confident He is mindful of these lives.
If the baby is going to be born without arms or legs, I don't think the child should have to go through life like that.
Did you give life? Under whose sovereignty do you take life away?
You see, here's the thing: I believe that if the baby is aborted, the spirit inside the body will have a chance to catch the next pregnancy and be born into a good body. The spirt might have to choose a different mother, but it will have a much better life.
How do you support your belief? Is it from the giver of life?
I have no proof of what I told you. It just makes perfect sense that if a person gets aborted, that they would have another chance to live in a different body.
How does that square with every life being unique. For crying out loud, every snowflake is unique. You destroy that being and that being is GONE, there's no "catching a next pregnancy." On that basis, abortion means nothing.
I'm kind of leaning towards it should be allowed for profound birth defects. I'm against any kind of suffering from birth defects.
I’m fine if there are birth defects or if it is a minor that was molested or raped, up until a certain gestation age.