[EternalVigilance]

Where this legislation might be considered immoral is if it's author had no further intention of further restricting abortion by subsequent legislation once this legislation passed.

Their alleged intent is meaningless in terms of the law.

The fact is, these bills grant an explicit governmental license to kill babies. All of them.

That's immoral.

That's unconstitutional.

If you surrender the moral basis, and the constitutional basis, you have absolutely no power left to stand in the way of abortion on demand.

Which is the primary reason the bloodbath has continued for more than four decades.

[johniegrad]

Their alleged intent is meaningless in terms of the law.

That's true but you alleged that the legislation was immoral and intent is a basic tenet of analyzing the morality of an act.

I agree that existing law allowing abortion is immoral. We have many immoral laws.

But in the face of immoral laws allowing abortion, it is not immoral to restrict the reach of those laws if their repeal cannot be immediately accomplished. Again, to not limit their reach when it's possible is in itself immoral.

[cookcounty]

"Where this legislation might be considered immoral is if it's author had no further intention of further restricting abortion by subsequent legislation once this legislation passed."

We can get a half a loaf now, save millions of lives, though not others, and then try for the whole loaf,

Or, we can refuse to back partial limits now because we want the whole thing or nothing, spend 20 years re-educating the public while twice as many die, and then try for the whole ban.

I recommend the former course.