Its the duty of responsibility, which every woman has an inherent right to accept or not. If a woman decides, for whatever her reason, that she is not prepared to accept that burden, she should not. It is not my call to make, it is not your call to make, it is hers, and hers alone.
All but the strictest banning of abortions would allow for exceptions to save the mother’s life. Republican wives, daughters & mistresses could afford doctors willing to vouch for the possibility of suicidal behavior caused by an unwanted pregnancy; thus, admission to a private clinic for a discreet D&C. What about the responsibilities of the *fathers *of these unwanted fetuses?
We non-hypocrites will enjoy the Texas Observer’s ongoing coverageof the story.
One of those exceptions you listed was if the mother was a Democrat.
Hey, guess who else thought it wasn’t murder if inferior people were killed?
No, I’m afraid we’re trying to paint you as something worse. Eugenicists didn’t view their means as “monstrously immoral”.
He only wants to kill poor babies. So any baby can save itself by getting a job and earning its keep.
You guys appear to have trouble reading my post–I said I favor legal abortions, not that I want to kill anyone.
Maybe you should clarify why you think abortion is “monstrously immoral”. That usually means that abortion = murder.
ETA: Oh wait, you already did. And you equated it with murder. I’m afraid you’ve painted yourself into a corner, Martin. You are in favor of certain types of murder because it creates what you think is a better society.
Life begins at 40 …
Whew. At least I feel safe!
I know I only just made it last year!
Emphasis added.
You didn’t say that you, personally, wanted to kill anyone. But you said you favor legalizing murder by other people in order to produce a result more favorable to your political views.
I can’t see any other way to read those two posts, taken together.
You can posit that executions are a form of state murder, but still valid societal policy. I think the death penalty is immoral but I also think it necessary at some points in time/history (I don’t think it necessary or appropriate in the modern day United States.)
But when it comes to abortions, which you seem to consider the equivalent of murder, you don’t seem to mind it as much when it comes to getting rid of poor people and your political opponents.
Who says that justice will grind to a halt without a 9th justice.
You’re mistaken. It has ALWAYS been immoral and unnecessary.
Would that the authorities in Jerusalem had been able to figure that out a couple of millennia ago.
Probably some Republicans would say that…
I doubt it … SCOTUS just deadlocked on Obama’s Executive Order on immigration leaving the lower court’s overturning in place … Republicans should be celebrating now …
No, no they aren’t. The ones I know are crying in their beer. Clinton is likely to win the next election and this is going to force them to take Merrick Garland before Clinton nominates someone far less palatable to their ideology. They are going to have to drop all pretense of letting the next president nominate the supreme court justice to fill the vacant seat as soon as Hillary wins the election. Shit, several Republicans are probably ready to vote for him right now just in case Obama decides to pull his nomination and nominate the President of NARAL instead.
He wouldn’t. Obama really believes that Broderist crap about persuasion and reason with your opponents. He is a centrist fanatic.
Best news I’ve heard all month!