That is simple, it would put restrictions on the progressives when it comes to abortion. Common sense is the key to turning around the attack on humans, and that is exactly what it is. Some progressives want post-birth abortion as well, and that is about as sick as you can get. How could a person put a just-born baby in their hand and intentionally kill it? We have lost a lot of humanity because of the progressives and the no-holds-barred for abortions.
This piece is a great read and puts a common-sense perspective on when human life begins. All IMO.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/02/if_all_human_lives_deserve_protection_and_love_then_the_debate_is_over.html
“Several years ago, I was seated in an open-office setting, overhearing a group of colleagues discussing abortion. The opinions were all over the map, and as the conversation grew more heated, something struck me. I stepped in and asked two simple questions that cut through every argument, every exception, every emotional appeal:
Do all human lives deserve to be protected?
Do all human lives deserve to be loved?
That’s it. No rhetoric. No complexity. Just a yes‑or‑no question. And once you follow the implications of that answer honestly, the truth becomes impossible to ignore.
Let us examine both questions objectively, focusing on logical analysis and critical thinking, rather than emotion, ideology, or personal preference. These are not abstract questions, philosophical riddles for classrooms or seminar tables. They are the foundation stones of a civilization. How we answer them determines not only how we treat the smallest and most vulnerable among us, but also who we become and what kind of nation we choose to build.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not say “most persons,” or “persons who have reached a certain stage,” or “persons who are convenient to protect.” It says, “any person.” The framers of that amendment understood something profound: the moment you begin carving out exceptions to human dignity, you have already abandoned the principle itself. Equal protection is either universal or meaningless.
So, let’s return to the original two questions:
Do all human lives deserve equal protection? If the answer is yes, then the implications are sweeping. If the answer is no, then the implications are even more sweeping — and far more dangerous.
Do all human lives deserve to be loved? Not in the sentimental sense, but in the moral sense — the sense that love means willing the good of the other, protecting the vulnerable, restraining harm, and honoring the inherent worth of every human being. If love is conditional, then dignity is conditional as well. And if dignity is conditional, then rights are conditional as well. That is the road every just society must refuse to walk.
These become essential questions that need to be answered when dealing with the subject of abortion. When people have an abortion debate, the arguments on both sides center around the issues of privacy, autonomy, choice, and circumstance. But the essential question that they seem to ignore, or answer in a very roundabout way, is the question of when human life begins.
When does human life begin?
When we look at the arguments in this debate, we see people answering this question in different ways. Some people say that human life begins at birth. In contrast, others say it begins at “viability,” and others argue that there are different “viability” points at various times during the forty-week journey of pregnancy. What is essential to recognize is that the arguments in this debate do not identify a specific point along the continuum of conception and birth; they point to a moment, in their estimation, when a human being becomes a “person.” All of the “proposed” lines of argument seem very subjective, biased, and a rationalization of the ignorance of life. When we are responsible for life, the stakes and uncertainty are not permission to cross the line — they are a way to warn us against the possible consequences of the crossing.
In every other area of law and ethics, when the outcome could be the destruction of a human being, we default to caution. We do not take chances with life. We do not gamble with dignity. We do not say, “We’re not sure, so let’s proceed anyway.” We say, “Because we are not sure, we must protect.”
That principle leads to a simple, unavoidable conclusion: If we cannot identify a morally coherent moment after conception when personhood begins, then the only consistent starting point is conception itself. A genetically unique human organism comes into existence at conception, and that unique organism has its own DNA, its own individual identity, and its own separate developmental course. The entire continuum of human development unfolds from that first moment.
If that is true — and if all human life deserves equal protection and deserves to be loved — then the moral conclusion is clear: intentionally ending that life is wrong. Not because of politics. Not because of ideology. But because of the inherent worth of the human being whose life is being taken.
This is not a grey‑zone argument. If you believe that every human life deserves love and protection, then you cannot carve out exceptions without contradicting yourself. If you say, “Life is sacred… except in these cases,” then you are not upholding a principle — you are expressing a preference. And preferences shift with culture, convenience, and emotion. Principles do not.
Here is a final point that carries such weight: If we accept the idea that some human lives do not deserve protection or love, that logic will not remain confined to abortion. Once a society accepts the premise that certain lives are less worthy — because they are small, dependent, inconvenient, or burdensome — that premise can be applied elsewhere. The elderly, the disabled, the terminally ill, the mentally impaired, the marginalized — all become vulnerable when the principle of universal dignity is abandoned.
The abortion debate is not isolated. It reveals what we truly believe about human worth. If we say that the smallest and most voiceless humans do not deserve protection, then we have already accepted a hierarchy of human value. And once that hierarchy exists, it can expand. And it will expand.
But if we say that every human life — regardless of size, stage, dependency, or circumstance — deserves to be loved and protected, then we are affirming a principle that strengthens every other moral commitment we hold. We are saying that dignity is not earned. The state does not grant it. It is not bestowed by the powerful. It is inherent. It is universal. It is sacred. It is our God-given right.
This is the moral architecture that holds a society together. This is the foundation of equal protection. This is the heart of human rights. And this is the truth that the Fourteenth Amendment reflects: any person deserves the protection of the law.
So we return to the opening questions, now with clarity:
Do all human lives deserve to be protected?
If the answer is yes, then that protection must begin at conception.
Do all human lives deserve to be loved?
If the answer is yes, then that love must extend to the smallest and most vulnerable among us.
This decision is clear-cut, presenting no ambiguity and eliminating the risk of distorting the argument with improbable or unreasonable exceptions. The choice is for coherence over contradiction, principle over preference, a culture of life over a culture of death.
In the end, a just society must choose whether it will defend every human life or abandon that very principle, because the future we build will rise or fall on that single, uncompromising truth. Do all human lives deserve to be protected and loved?”