Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Men benefit from abortion too.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [ACE] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I can understand your viewpoint and feel similar for myself - although having almost died in pregnancy I think a lot of these views underestimate the actual risk of pregnancy and childbirth to the mother- so do not think I should decide for others.

But- as a data analyst- why are the anti-abortion groups so dead set on laws that don’t impact the outcome very much - when instead they could focus on programs that are proven with data to stop abortion?

I don’t think you will find any who think a willing drop in abortion rates is bad. Why not more birth control options for males and females? Why not college scholarships for birth mothers so they have a path forward after dedicating nearly a year of their life and lots of pain and vomit to keeping a child? How to we actually support the people in stopping this in a win win way? I just feel so much time and money is flushed down the toilet when the same funds could actually make a difference. And be done with good energy and a more positive experience for all.

What if a goal was set to willingly drop abortions by 50% by 2030 and we really dug in on that. I would think it would have a bigger impact on the abortion rate and a positive impact on many members of society.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [monty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Quote:
Forgive me, I thought that you were voting pro life and defending this Alabama decision. My bad..

I think Blep only really took issue with my position, which I admit is on the fringe, and even then we don't disagree on policy, only on attitude toward it.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
I don’t think you will find any who think a willing drop in abortion rates is bad.

You sure about that?

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [windywave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I some ways I see this LEGALLY as analogous to the 2A debate where liberals work to narrow gun rights and legislate/tax around the edges (ammo, magazines, etc etc) as a means to diminish the law. (Yes, I realize the 2A is a constitutional right and Roe v Wade is not) but the tactics are similar. Don't explicitly make all abortions illegal but narrow as much as possible the legal mechanics thus 'practically' outlawing abortion.

Seems most 2A attacks fall apart in the courts just as it would seem these abortion efforts will fall apart in the courts. I hope the SCOTUS take the position that it's settled law, abortion remains legal but leave room for states to have SOME say in when an abortion can be performed, ie - up to 12 weeks, or 10 weeks, or 18 weeks. But within some narrow boundaries.

Wasn't it in Texas where they required abortions to be performed within x miles of a hospital thus, practically, outlawing abortions?

Will be interesting, legally. Morally and practically, not as interesting.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Because it's not about saving lives, it's about people not sinning.

Trust me, I used to share an office with an evangelical. Its never about results, but always about telling people what they can and cannot do.




Quote:
But- as a data analyst- why are the anti-abortion groups so dead set on laws that don’t impact the outcome very much - when instead they could focus on programs that are proven with data to stop abortion?

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JD21 wrote:
Yes, I realize the 2A is a constitutional right and Roe v Wade is not.

not quite right. 2A is an enumerated right. abortion is not, because, like a lot of things, it was not contemplated by the framers. the court found that the right to abortion is just as embedded in the constitution (that is, embedded in the amendments) as 2A, just, it's 14A that protects a women's "right to privacy".

but i believe as you do. 2A and 14A are rights, but are not absolute rights. 2A circumscribes itself in the second half of that amendment, which gun rights advocates treat as if it's not there at all. 14A advocates - as applied to the right to choose - sometimes treat this as an abuse of the right to choose.

bear in mind, roe v wade, when it was decided, gave states the right to prohibit the termination of pregnancies in the 3rd trimester. so, if you're alabama, go for it. make 3rd trimester abortions illegal.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
still, it's reasonable to assume that at some point rights flow to the unborn, and that a pregnant woman must exercise her choice to terminate prior to that point.

The first part is reasonable. The second part is only reasonable if you don't think that those rights flow to the unborn child at the moment of conception.

Quote:
it's also reasonable that the state exercise its responsibility. any person, or any entity, including a governmental entity, that through direct action or legislative action makes terminating that pregnancy harder than it should be takes on itself the financial obligation of raising that child. that's only fair (texas). so, if you're the state of texas, or alabama, get ready to open your pocketbook.

Arguing from the point of view or pro-lifers, this is nonsense. The state is not somehow obligated to provide for the child just because it denies you the right to kill the child. The state doesn't allow you to kill your neighbor. That doesn't mean the state is responsible for providing for all the financial obligations of your neighbor.

Quote:
it's fundamentally wrong, under our form of government, for one religious majority to force its religion on everyone else.

Sure, but it's not fundamentally wrong for any group of people with shared believes to pursue normal democratic processes to implement those beliefs. Religious groups aren't forcing their religious beliefs on the population. They are lobbying their governments to enact laws and policies that conform to their beliefs, just like every other interest group does. That's actually fundamental to the democratic process.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:

So do you or your friends acknowledge that it is the taking of a life?


We acknowledge that we are terminating a preeganancy/aborting a fetus. If you wish to insist that we are "murdering a human", so be it, that's fine with me. They would acknowledge that also while being indifferent to the need to use Duffy-approved terminology. My wife and I clearly blocked fertilized eggs from being implanted. You can call us "baby killers" if you feel a need to. Life is funny and ubiquitous, Pro-Life is almost always "pro-fetus", and willfully indifferent to improving the life of people, especially the starving in other countries. As many have pointed out, lower poverty rates tracks very strongly with lower abortion rates. I prefer to lower abortion rates via better birth control and raised living standards while making it rarer but still legal.
Last edited by: oldandslow: May 15, 19 17:43
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
still, it's reasonable to assume that at some point rights flow to the unborn, and that a pregnant woman must exercise her choice to terminate prior to that point.


The first part is reasonable. The second part is only reasonable if you don't think that those rights flow to the unborn child at the moment of conception.

Quote:
it's also reasonable that the state exercise its responsibility. any person, or any entity, including a governmental entity, that through direct action or legislative action makes terminating that pregnancy harder than it should be takes on itself the financial obligation of raising that child. that's only fair (texas). so, if you're the state of texas, or alabama, get ready to open your pocketbook.


Arguing from the point of view or pro-lifers, this is nonsense. The state is not somehow obligated to provide for the child just because it denies you the right to kill the child. The state doesn't allow you to kill your neighbor. That doesn't mean the state is responsible for providing for all the financial obligations of your neighbor.

Quote:
it's fundamentally wrong, under our form of government, for one religious majority to force its religion on everyone else.


Sure, but it's not fundamentally wrong for any group of people with shared believes to pursue normal democratic processes to implement those beliefs. Religious groups aren't forcing their religious beliefs on the population. They are lobbying their governments to enact laws and policies that conform to their beliefs, just like every other interest group does. That's actually fundamental to the democratic process.


if a religious group uses its power to inflict its religious beliefs on others, that's 1) unconstitutional; and 2) uncool. if the religious right really wants to take a shellacking in 2020, it needs to get its way on this issue between now and the election.

it certainly is fundamentally wrong, in every conceivable way, including according to the very tenets of christianity. religious groups aren't, as you put it, "just like every other interest group." enforcement of a religion was specifically carved out as a named "peril" by our founding fathers. it's the first clause of the first sentence of the first amendment. you can't force your religious views on me; and i can't keep you from exercising your own religious views.

it's certainly not current law to have anyone who impedes a lawful abortion from taking on the financial responsibility of raising the child he forces into the world. but making it law would be great! you're arguing against something i'm not stating. if the state kills someone unjustly, civil law absolutely calls for the state to make whole the victim's family. if the state infringes on someone's lawful right an abortion, then the state (or any actor) should bear the financial responsibility for raising that child. that will stop states cold from trying to force their religious majority views on the entire population.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Last edited by: Slowman: May 15, 19 17:42
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
We acknowledge that we are terminating a preeganancy/aborting a fetus.

Do you acknowledge that that is life?

Quote:
If you wish to insist that we are "murdering a human", so be it, that's fine with me.

I said nor implied no such thing. What I said was that we are taking a life and that you can label it whatever makes you feel ok about it and I gave examples of those labels (baby, fetus, person, etc.)

Nowhere in any of my posts here did I use the words “murder” or “human”.

Quote:
They would acknowledge that also while being indifferent to the need to use Duffy-approved terminology.

I don’t have any “approved terminology. I’m interested in the terminology that people use. Again, I said this earlier, you can use whatever terminology you want. What I’m also interested in is knowing whether or not you think that aborting that ______________ is taking a life?

I say it is and I say this as someone who is not in favor of abortion being illegal (up to birth and in some cases after birth).

Quote:
My wife and I clearly blocked fertilized eggs from being implanted.

Ok.

Quote:
You can call us "baby killers" if you feel a need to.

I would never do any such thing. And there’s nothing I’ve posted here that would indicate that I would. You are doing some serious projecting and I’m really baffled as to where it’s coming from.

Quote:
Life is funny and ubiquitous, Pro-Life is almost always "pro-fetus", and willfully indifferent to improving the life of people, especially the starving in other countries.

I’m not “Pro-life” so I have no response for this.

Quote:
I prefer to lower abortion rates via better birth control and raised living standards while making it rarer but still legal.

Me too, which is exactly what I’ve said in this thread on numerous occasions.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
I said nor implied no such thing. What I said was that we are taking a life and that you can label it whatever makes you feel ok about it and I gave examples of those labels (baby, fetus, person, etc.)

you keep conflating "life" with "human life". i don't stipulate that a zygote is human life. it has the potential to become human life. and it is alive, in the same way that a bacterium is alive. but the fact that a zygote metabolizes does not make it a human being. you were under the bleachers with somebody, metabolizing, when your bio 101 course was in session.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
You are doing some serious projecting and I’m really baffled as to where it’s coming from.


I'm guessing it stems from the semantic game you're simultaneously playing and claiming no part of.

Quote:
I don’t have any “approved terminology. I’m interested in the terminology that people use. Again, I said this earlier, you can use whatever terminology you want. What I’m also interested in is knowing whether or not you think that aborting that ______________ is taking a life?


You're insisting that abortion is "taking a life" when you know very well that phrase is as loaded a term as those you are distancing yourself from.

When I turn off the vasopressors on a patient believed to have no cortical function whatsoever, at the request of the power of attorney, would you describe that as me "taking a life?" Or would you describe catching a fish or picking fresh vegetables for dinner as "taking a life?" I'm guessing no.

Abortion in the vast majority of cases prevents a potentially viable independent person from developing. I think everyone can agree on that, and doesn't involve loaded terms that are synonymous with human-specific homicide or murder.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Last edited by: sphere: May 15, 19 18:28
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
Duffy wrote:
I said nor implied no such thing. What I said was that we are taking a life and that you can label it whatever makes you feel ok about it and I gave examples of those labels (baby, fetus, person, etc.)


you keep conflating "life" with "human life". i don't stipulate that a zygote is human life. it has the potential to become human life. and it is alive, in the same way that a bacterium is alive. but the fact that a zygote metabolizes does not make it a human being. you were under the bleachers with somebody, metabolizing, when your bio 101 course was in session.


Not me. I have not not once referred to that which is aborted as human.

You say I “keep conflating” implying that I’ve done it more than once. I haven’t done it at all. In fact I have been very careful NOT to.

Other people are conflating life with human life.

I have only used the term “life”. I pointed out that people use whatever terms they want and gave examples (fetus, zygote, baby.....).

You and oldandslow are seeing shit that just isn’t there.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Last edited by: Duffy: May 15, 19 18:24
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
Quote:
You are doing some serious projecting and I’m really baffled as to where it’s coming from.


I'm guessing it stems from the semantic game you're simultaneously playing and claiming no part of.

Quote:
I don’t have any “approved terminology. I’m interested in the terminology that people use. Again, I said this earlier, you can use whatever terminology you want. What I’m also interested in is knowing whether or not you think that aborting that ______________ is taking a life?


You're insisting that abortion is "taking a life" when you know very well that phrase is as loaded a term as those you are distancing yourself from.

When I turn off the vasopressors on a patient believed to have no cortical function whatsoever, at the request of the power of attorney, would you describe that as me "taking a life?" Or would you describe catching a fish for dinner as "taking a life?" I'm guessing no.

Abortion in the vast majority of cases prevents a potentially viable independent person from developing. I think everyone can agree on that, and doesn't involve loaded terms that are synonymous with human-specific homicide or murder.


I’m saying that I believe that it’s taking a life. I’ve also stated now numerous times that other people use different terms for what that is. I’m not playing a semantic game, I’m trying to be as clear as possible what my view is.

I see abortion as taking a life. I also see it as something that should remain LEGAL up to birth (and in some cases after).

I have stated this very clearly.

Someone asked me about a treating a tapeworm. I said it’s taking a life and I’d go ahead and killing the fucking tapeworm. It’s a life. So is that thing in the womb that’s being aborted. It’s a life. Call it whatever the hell you want. I call it a “life”.

What I’m asking is what other people consider it.

I have also said that this subject is messy. The implication of that (just so I’m being clear) is that I don’t think there really is a right answer here.

I started this thread saying the law passed in Alabama is stupid and harmful.

Are you people not even reading my fucking words?

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Last edited by: Duffy: May 15, 19 18:33
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Duffy wrote:
I said nor implied no such thing. What I said was that we are taking a life and that you can label it whatever makes you feel ok about it and I gave examples of those labels (baby, fetus, person, etc.)


you keep conflating "life" with "human life". i don't stipulate that a zygote is human life. it has the potential to become human life. and it is alive, in the same way that a bacterium is alive. but the fact that a zygote metabolizes does not make it a human being. you were under the bleachers with somebody, metabolizing, when your bio 101 course was in session.


Not me. I have not not once referred to that which is aborted as human.

You say I “keep conflating” implying that I’ve done it more than once. I haven’t done it at all. In fact I have been very careful NOT to.

Other people are conflating life with human life.

I have only used the term “life”. I pointed out that people use whatever terms they want and gave examples (fetus, zygote, baby.....).

You and oldandslow are seeing shit that just isn’t there.

my mistake. what you wrote was, "I believe that abortion is awful and the taking of a life." but you nevertheless think it should be legal. so, swatting a fly; getting an abortion; more or less the same thing. each is taking a life. in each case, regrettable but should be legal. do i get it now?

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I personally don’t see abortion the same way that I see swatting a fly but you’re close enough.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
For the record, you and I are in total agreement on all the points that matter. It just seems to me you're generating unnecessary conflict by using loaded terms. Killing a tapeworm isn't "taking a life" in the sense that the term has come to impart meaning. That term specifically implies killing another human being, another person, and if you asked 100 people what it means, upwards of 99% (exempting you, apparently) would understand that to mean killing a person. And a zygote isn't a person, even though it's a rudimentary form of human life that has potential to become a person.

Moral implications for destroying an embryo or zygote, yes. Of course. But not the same as "taking a life."

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
That term specifically implies killing another human being, another person, and if you asked 100 people what it means, upwards of 99% (exempting you, apparently) would understand that to mean killing a person.

There are many forms of life but what we are discussing here is something that we all agree would become a human life.

But when it comes to abortion we all call it our preferred thing. Hard core pro lifers call it a baby or a human, others call it a zygote or a clump of cells.

These labels are used to help bolster their respective positions on this subject. If you are against abortion using the term “baby” for what gets aborted triggers a response. “It’s killing a baby!” (Please take note of the quote marks here and understand that I’m not saying it’s killing a baby, I’m quoting a hypothetical pro lifer) which puts the act in a much more negative light.

On the “other side” terms like zygote or clump of cell or unviable tissue mass are used to “dehumanize” that which is aborted and to make those who support abortion more comfortable with the act of abortion.

As for myself I don’t feel the need to trick myself with emotionally charged terms like “baby” or euphemism like “unviable tissue mass” or “reproductive healthcare services” in order to be comfortable with the subject matter.

Abortion is messy. Most of the time (NOT ALL OF THE TIME!!!!) it’s and awful thing to do by someone who has fucked up numerous times along the way. It’s gross.

I view that thing which is aborted as a “life” and the act of abortion is ending that “life”.

And I accept it as that.

To me this isn’t something that we should being trying to make ourselves feel better about. We should all feel really bad about it with our eyes wide open to what it is we are doing.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
It just seems to me you're generating unnecessary conflict by using loaded terms.

You think?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You and I agree on almost nothing, but I 100% agree with your POV on this.

However I'm glad Alabama went all-in. It is a losing strategy (for a really good POV on this the NY Times has an op-ed about traveling down this road before (asking the SC to determine when a life actually begins (and yes NYT Opinion page isn't middle of the road, but this piece was from a lawyer/constitutional perspective))) as SC REALLY doesn't want to get into the "when does life begin" discussion.

This has been coming for a while, even before DJT became POTUS and the SC went conservative (though I'm afraid the ultra-anti abortionists are in for another disappointment).

Roe is horrible law. But the alternative is untenable.

And as much as the ultra-left/pro-choice regardless of morality crowd is beyond reasoning with, the far right/every-life-is-sacred anti-abortionists have decided that this battle has no middle ground. Moderate conservatives are getting absolutely gutted for their "bridge too far" opines on the Alabama law.....literally going to the zygote = human argument regardless of the VAST grey area that exists due to risk/circumstance/viability.....

And the shit-show continues.....

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Goosedog] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Does trump just not know how birth works? Because I don't think he has any idea what a womb is.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
Duffy wrote:
I said nor implied no such thing. What I said was that we are taking a life and that you can label it whatever makes you feel ok about it and I gave examples of those labels (baby, fetus, person, etc.)

you keep conflating "life" with "human life". i don't stipulate that a zygote is human life. it has the potential to become human life. and it is alive, in the same way that a bacterium is alive. but the fact that a zygote metabolizes does not make it a human being. you were under the bleachers with somebody, metabolizing, when your bio 101 course was in session.

This is sophistry on an almost unparalleled scale. There is life that if you genetically tested it would be human, that if it continues to grow will be born and be what you consider human. Pray tell when does the morphing into a human occur?
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [mopdahl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mopdahl wrote:

Roe is horrible law. But the alternative is untenable.

First off it is a court decision not a law, but I agree it is horrible. Not the outcome, but the actual decision.

How is it untenable? Each state would decide for itself what it wanted its abortion laws to be which would be an expression of the will of the people. I honestly don't see abortion being totally outlawed in any state (This Alabama law was explicitly designed to be taken to SCOTUS so that a heartbeat bill could be passed without worry of it being overturned). Now if SCOTUS banned abortion completely, which i would imagine would be difficult with this law and how the case should play out, then we'd be on the reverse of the coin with the Federal government impinging upon the rights of the states and then I'd have to bitch about that case.

At the end of the day it boils down to how old the baby is when people are comfortable killing it wantonly. Most people are in the 6 to 16 week range which will probably mean that is where all the states end up. Rape incest and life of the mother will always be longer than the recreational termination timeframe.
Quote Reply
Re: Alabama - derp! - bans abortion... [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
if a religious group uses its power to inflict its religious beliefs on others, that's 1) unconstitutional; and 2) uncool.

Maybe yes to 2, but no to 1. It's unconstitutional for the government to infringe on the rights of the people to practice religion freely, or to make laws establishing a national religion. It's not unconstitutional for a bunch of Christians to lobby for policies that conform with their beliefs. It's not unconstitutional for legislators to rely on their religious beliefs to inform the way they view which laws should be passed or not passed. It's no more unconstitutional for religious people to "inflict" their beliefs on the rest of the country in this way than it is for someone who believes in a certain immigration policy or a certain health care policy to "inflict" their ideas on the country using the same mechanisms.

Now, if Congress got together and passed a law that said, "Wherefore the Christian God says we shall not murder, therefore abortion is illegal," sure, that would be unconstitutional. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Quote:
it's the first clause of the first sentence of the first amendment. you can't force your religious views on me; and i can't keep you from exercising your own religious views.

Well, first, that's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution doesn't prevent citizens from imposing their beliefs. It prevents the government from imposing on the rights of the citizens.

Second, I agree that I can't force you to believe in Christianity. I can't force you to participate in religious ceremonies or rites. I can, however, lobby my Congressman to pass laws that I feel are right, and I can make my decision on whether they are right or not using my religious beliefs.

Citizens are not required to disregard their religious beliefs when considering what laws to support, what politicians to vote for, etc.

Quote:
it's certainly not current law to have anyone who impedes a lawful abortion from taking on the financial responsibility of raising the child he forces into the world. but making it law would be great! you're arguing against something i'm not stating. if the state kills someone unjustly, civil law absolutely calls for the state to make whole the victim's family. if the state infringes on someone's lawful right an abortion, then the state (or any actor) should bear the financial responsibility for raising that child. that will stop states cold from trying to force their religious majority views on the entire population.

Well now you're changing your argument. I'm not arguing against something you didn't state. I'm arguing in direct response to what you DID state. Now you're talking about someone making it harder to get a lawful abortion. Before you talked about anyone (including the government) who takes "direct action or legislative action makes terminating that pregnancy harder than it should be." Those are two very different things, unless you are simply choosing to proceed from the viewpoint that any legislation that restricts abortion is inherently unlawful. Before, you were stating that if the government takes legislative action to make abortion harder than you deem that it should be, then the government should reasonably be required to assume responsibility for the financial burden of raising the child.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply

Prev Next