Sign in to follow this  
Phineas

Anti-abortion bill in Alabama

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Godless said:

That's a truly courageous and admirable mindset. But it shouldn't be mandated. My own mother chose to continue her pregnancy with my youngest brother at extreme risk to both of their lives, and we did come very close to losing both of them when he was born. I don't envy any woman who is put in that situation, and I would never dare to pass judgement on her decision in that moment. 

I was, as you did, pointing out that it was a courageous and admirable trait.

17 minutes ago, Godless said:

The more this debate drags out, the less I find myself liking the term "pro-life". You expect me to believe that the party that balks at investing public money in education (Alabama ranks 50th here, btw), seeks to slash programs like Medicaid and WIC, and has never once tried to fix our broken foster care system really cares about kids after they leave the womb?

You are saying that government is the only answer to any problem in public debate.  That is the point I disagree with you on. 

First, you don't offer adoption as a solution?  Several on this board were adopted.  And they are happy.  This has been the preferred solution to avoid exactly what you're talking about.  It has been so for thousands of years.

You want to help someone in need?  Go ahead and help them.  Also allow others to do the same.  Don't FORCE them to do so.  And don't FORCE them to give their tax dollars to a solution that helps 10 to 20 times more women do worse things and keep repeating bad behavior.

When there was a single mother in our ward, we did MANY things to try to help that woman.  We had babysitters set up for multiple scheduling issues.  We offered financial assistance, both personally, and through official church channels.  I personally offered her a FREE course that would have helped her get a better job.

Would you rather encourage women to continue in self-destructive behavior and killing babies out of convenience?  Or would you offer real solutions such as those in my ward did?

17 minutes ago, Godless said:

You want a woman to carry a fetus to term under any circumstances, but what means are you willing to provide for her to ensure both she and her baby remain healthy throughout the process? Prenatal care isn't cheap, and there's a lot that can go medically wrong during a pregnancy. Should reproduction be a privilege reserved for those who can afford proper health care?

Actually, it is surprisingly cheap.  But most simply don't know how to do it without high priced professionals.  And many simply aren't willing to do it out of convenience.  

If you are of a mind that the baby isn't really a human until birth, then that's all there is to it.  But if you believe there is life there that is sacred, then you don't terminate it simply out of preference, inconvenience, or "I just don't want to spend the time/money/effort".  You choose to say,"Failure is not an option." Then you can find solutions.  But instead you've found it a lot easier to simply say,"No, we can fail and be ok."

17 minutes ago, Godless said:

At what point does "pro-life" include a woman whose pregnancy puts her life in immediate danger?

In that case it is a matter of self-defense.  If one life is threatening another, you take out the one who is threatening the other.  That's not hard.

17 minutes ago, Godless said:

At what point is abortion a mercy to a fetus with severe and irreparable medical complications like the ones you read about in stories like these?

Never.  Yes, you read that right.  That simply amounts to a creative form of eugenics.  Do you really want to go down that road?  I can tell you wonder stories of how many lives were changed for the better because of a severely disabled person in their lives.  And you would rather the world be rid of such miracles?

17 minutes ago, Godless said:

Conservatives aren't pro-life, they're pro-birth. They want women to deliver babies no matter the cost, because only the mother will have to worry about the cost (which will in turn have consequences for that child you cared so much about when it was in utero). 

We prefer the choices be made prior to getting pregnant.  How about, first, don't have sex outside of marriage?  But again, free sex is really what it comes down to.  The argument is simply "I want to have sex as much as I want without having to worry about pregnancy."  Name one pro-abortion argument that is not in some way based on this assumption -- other than health/life of the mother, rape, or incest.

17 minutes ago, Godless said:

If you want to prevent abortions, there are better ways to do it. Comprehensive sex education, expanded access to affordable health care, and expanded insurance coverage for birth control are all great ways to prevent pregnancies that could result in abortion, but weirdly enough I never hear conservatives talking up those solutions. Quite the opposite, in fact. 

That would seem like it would be a great road to go down.  And we have gone down that road for many years now.  How's that been going?  Not well.  Why?  Because the courses are not about any of those purported reasons.  The courses are about sexual indoctrination MUCH more than the legitimate reasons.  How much is abstinence taught in such "sex ed" courses?  About 2 minutes in the first class.  Then the entire semester is about contraception, orgasms, human sexuality, sexual positions, sexual orientation... the list goes on.

If you're really for this last set of ideas, then great.  We agree.   I thinking that would be great.  But you're wrong when you say conservatives don't suggest these things.  We do.  We do it in churches and family.  We do it in outreach programs and charities.  Just because we don't use government as the vehicle, doesn't mean it isn't being done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

I have a hard time with this new law. I unfortunately view it in the same context as those who want to ban all weapons. Such a ban would not get rid of the use of weapons....just the legal ways to obtain them. Such is the same with this abortion ban. Banning abortion in the state of Alabama does not get rid of abortion in that state...just the legal (and safe) ways of doing so. 

I am all about agency. To choose for oneself of how you want to live your life. Do I want to protect the life of a fetus? Absolutely, I do. But, if my friend, who chooses to have an abortion, doesn't feel the same, who am I (or who is the government) to tell her what to do? To get in the way of her agency. 

I don't know. This has always been a very sticky and difficult issue that I have gone back and forth on for many years. But this law just does not feel right to me. 

It's not about "a ban".  It is about what is acceptable behavior in a civilized society.  Is it acceptable to take away every law abiding citizen's right to own a gun? Yes or no.  That's all.  Nothing else.  If you say yes, then we ban all guns.  If you say no, then we allow law-abiding citizens to keep them.  End of story.

Is it acceptable in a civilized society to allow pregnant women to kill the life growing in their womb?  Yes or no.  That's all.  Nothing else.

Yes, we can talk about exceptions (such as life or health of the mother).  And we can add conditions (like violent felons who have served a prison sentence).  But those are the primary questions to ask.  What is your answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mores said:

It's not about "a ban".  It is about what is acceptable behavior in a civilized society.  Is it acceptable to take away every law abiding citizen's right to own a gun? Yes or no.  That's all.  Nothing else.  If you say yes, then we ban all guns.  If you say no, then we allow law-abiding citizens to keep them.  End of story.

Is it acceptable in a civilized society to allow pregnant women to kill the life growing in their womb?  Yes or no.  That's all.  Nothing else.

Yes, we can talk about exceptions (such as life or health of the mother).  And we can add conditions (like violent felons who have served a prison sentence).  But those are the primary questions to ask.  What is your answer?

Are you asking my opinion? Because "my" opinion doesn't really matter in the state of Alabama, as I am neither a resident of that state nor a legislator. 

We've asked many of these questions to those who reside in Alabama and many have disagreed with the stance that has been made. 

I personally have a difficult time with the law, but it is not my state. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who likes research, I'd be interested to see how this law will affect the state of Alabama over the next 5-10 years. How many women will report that they received an abortion through illegal means? How many will report that this ban changed their decision about whether or not to get an illegal abortion? How many individuals will "change" their mind about their stance on abortion?

How many people will move from Alabama so to not be affected by this law?

Only time will tell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

That's fine and I'd be happy to have those conversations. But abortion on demand must end for after birth care to matter as much.

I think this is where the pro choicers have a point. It matters now! If we can say that every life matters before birth, there are  innumerable babies that need their lives to matter now that have already been born. And not just in 3rd world countries. 

That being said, don't ask me how to do it. I'm not the expert but I certainly can see their point that too many children are in a bad place. That alone doesn't justify abortion. But it should be a  huge concern for pro lifers, too. It probably is. Maybe we just need to be more vocal about how pro-lifers ARE, right now trying to take care of the "inconvenient" babies that are born. And are willing to take on even more if necessary. Pro-lifers don't have a leg to stand on ( other than religious belief which isn't enough) if they don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

The federal courts will too. 

I hope so. If this is the start of an appeals process for these types of laws to make it to the supreme court to try to reverse the original Roe v. Wade decision, I very much hope that the federal government will not side with the state. Or try to create new precedent in favor of such a strict abortion ban at a federal level. That would feel like a lot of progress lost over the course of many years in our judiciary system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

Are you asking my opinion? Because "my" opinion doesn't really matter in the state of Alabama, as I am neither a resident of that state nor a legislator. 

We've asked many of these questions to those who reside in Alabama and many have disagreed with the stance that has been made. 

I personally have a difficult time with the law, but it is not my state. 

It was more of a rhetorical answer to your question.  You stated a position to oppose the nature of the bill.  You are correct that the State of Alabama has done what it has done.  But you stated an opinion on it in a public forum.  Supposedly it is to elicit a response from someone on said forum.  I gave you my response.

Don't read too much into it.  If my questions get you to thinking, they did their job.  Many others will read it and have different answers and different responses to those questions.  I will be glad to discuss with anyone who has something to add to the discussion.

In the end, a discussion like this is not about changing the world.  We tend not to do such things on forums like this.  The best we can hope for is to hash out ideas, test our theories, concerns, objections, support, arguments for or against...etc.  And hopefully, if nothing else, we ourselves have learned something in the process whether our minds are changed or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

I have a hard time with this new law. I unfortunately view it in the same context as those who want to ban all weapons. Such a ban would not get rid of the use of weapons....just the legal ways to obtain them. Such is the same with this abortion ban. Banning abortion in the state of Alabama does not get rid of abortion in that state...just the legal (and safe) ways of doing so. 

I am all about agency. To choose for oneself of how you want to live your life. Do I want to protect the life of a fetus? Absolutely, I do. But, if my friend, who chooses to have an abortion, doesn't feel the same, who am I (or who is the government) to tell her what to do? To get in the way of her agency. 

I don't know. This has always been a very sticky and difficult issue that I have gone back and forth on for many years. But this law just does not feel right to me. 

But the government has taken away a person's agency to kill another human being, no matter how annoying or inconvenient it is to live with or near that person.  There are lots of things we can't use our agency on, without serious repercussions. Like jail or being put to death ourselves.  I guess what counts is how much value you put on the life of a baby before it's born. 

Edited by carlimac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, carlimac said:

I think this is where the pro choicers have a point. It matters now! If we can say that every life matters before birth, there are  innumerable babies that need their lives to matter now that have already been born. And not just in 3rd world countries. 

That being said, don't ask me how to do it. I'm not the expert but I certainly can see their point that too many children are in a bad place. That alone doesn't justify abortion. But it should be a  huge concern for pro lifers, too. It probably is. Maybe we just need to be more vocal about how pro-lifers ARE, right now trying to take care of the "inconvenient" babies that are born. And are willing to take on even more if necessary. Pro-lifers don't have a leg to stand on ( other than religious belief which isn't enough) if they don't. 

I think you have a fair point. I was thinking of government help and intervention, of course single mothers need help right now. I don't know exactly what the perfect answer is, although I do know there are thousands of private groups that make themselves available to help women in a difficult situation. While abortion must stop, I'd be happy to launch some studies to see what the most effective way of helping women in pregnancy crises would be and acting according to that data. 

Edited by Midwest LDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, carlimac said:

But the government has taken away a person's agency to kill another human being, no matter how annoying or inconvenient it is to live with or near that person.  There are lots of things we can't use our agency on, without serious repercussions. Like jail or being put to death ourselves.  

I appreciate the viewpoint. And this is definitely the part of the "argument" that keeps me from being stuck on either side of it, but kind of on the fence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

I think you have a fair point. I was thinking of government help and intervention, of course single mothers need help right now. I don't know exactly what the perfect answer is, although I do know there are thousands of private groups that make themselves availble to help women in a difficult situation. While abortion must stop, I'd be happy to launch some studies to see what the most effective way of helping women in pregnancy crises would be and acting according to that data. 

http://time.com/5461616/abortions-lowest-rate-cdc/

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/3/18119528/abortion-rate-decline-2018-birth-control-iud-pill

The abortion rate is apparently at an all time low. Whatever they've been doing is working. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

I appreciate the viewpoint. And this is definitely the part of the "argument" that keeps me from being stuck on either side of it, but kind of on the fence. 

On the other hand of this argument is something mentioned earlier in this thread. That the definition of human life, per the law, does not coincide with viewing a fetus as a human.

Whether or not I agree with that is again a mute point. But using this argument that the death of a fetus is just the same as the death of another human being cannot be backed up using law, which is what state and federal case law is based off of. So in this regard, the Alabama ruling should not be upheld until the definition of human life is changed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

http://time.com/5461616/abortions-lowest-rate-cdc/

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/3/18119528/abortion-rate-decline-2018-birth-control-iud-pill

The abortion rate is apparently at an all time low. Whatever they've been doing is working. 

If that's the case that's great news (thanks for the links). If our push for alternative options is working (ie. birth control, education etc.) then it should be even easier to overturn Roe V. Wade and return the power to legislate abortions to the states ( while I would love it to happen at the federal level, I know it won't so I will take a victory at the state level).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Godless said:

The more this debate drags out, the less I find myself liking the term "pro-life". You expect me to believe that the party that balks at investing public money in education (Alabama ranks 50th here, btw), seeks to slash programs like Medicaid and WIC, and has never once tried to fix our broken foster care system really cares about kids after they leave the womb?

Education is a worthy policy debate topic. Likewise Medicaid and WIC. Foster care? Absolutely! They are important. However, no one should be required to support additional monies for any government program, or be told they have no right to speak about protecting human lives. If society decides that life begins at conception--or even that we will treat unborn babies as living humans until proven otherwise--then that's it. Those lives should be protected. Whether babies born poor, in need of foster care, etc. should get additional government support is another matter entirely.

BTW, this ship may have left the harbor, but I'm old school. I will call those who favor abortion rights "pro-choice." They should extend the same courtesy to those of us who favor protecting unborn human lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, prisonchaplain said:

, no one should be required to support additional monies for any government program

Amen to that. 

And for the record, taxpayer funded abortion is an abomination. If you are in favor of that, than I should be allowed to use your money for printing pro-life literature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Or is this Alabama bill too extreme?   The Libertarian in me tends to lean more pro-choice on this issue, so I would say that it is too extreme.

Political individualism works uniquely well in the United States. However, there are some values that are so communally accepted that we make them central to our governance. A Libertarian who believed that unborn babies should be given the benefit of the doubt and treated as human could support substantive government protections for those unborn babies. Ayn Rand was a militant atheist. I suspect that her influence has led many Objectivists and Libertarians to track pro-choice. So, I suspect that within Libertarianism views on abortion may be heavily influenced by the individual's theological outlook. Not always, but often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Midwest LDS said:

This represents my big problem with the pro choice side of the debate. If they were pushing for more comphrensive help for pregnant women and their children after birth, we might have some productive conversations. But in reality, pro choice only means pro death. It's as if you (generic) throw out all of these ideas to try and discredit the pro life side of the debate, and yet you (generic) just throw up your hands and say "but despite all these ideas of how to make it easier to care for children , it's impossible so let's just kill them." 

What do you think the ACA debate is about? Medicaid expansion? Pre-existing conditions? It's all connected. Think about it, if more women were properly insured and had access to affordable care, the non-abortion part of Planned Parenthood's operations would be rendered practically obsolete. And I guarantee the abortion rate would drop. 

1 hour ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

I have a hard time with this new law. I unfortunately view it in the same context as those who want to ban all weapons. Such a ban would not get rid of the use of weapons....just the legal ways to obtain them. Such is the same with this abortion ban. Banning abortion in the state of Alabama does not get rid of abortion in that state...just the legal (and safe) ways of doing so. 

I am all about agency. To choose for oneself of how you want to live your life. Do I want to protect the life of a fetus? Absolutely, I do. But, if my friend, who chooses to have an abortion, doesn't feel the same, who am I (or who is the government) to tell her what to do? To get in the way of her agency. 

I don't know. This has always been a very sticky and difficult issue that I have gone back and forth on for many years. But this law just does not feel right to me. 

Bingo. This bill won't stop abortions from happening. It's just going to make them more dangerous. It's going to lead to more dead women and babies.

1 hour ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

As someone who likes research, I'd be interested to see how this law will affect the state of Alabama over the next 5-10 years. How many women will report that they received an abortion through illegal means? How many will report that this ban changed their decision about whether or not to get an illegal abortion? How many individuals will "change" their mind about their stance on abortion?

How many people will move from Alabama so to not be affected by this law?

How many women will die because of this law? How will the infant mortality rate be affected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Godless said:

What do you think the ACA debate is about? Medicaid expansion? Pre-existing conditions? It's all connected. Think about it, if more women were properly insured and had access to affordable care, the non-abortion part of Planned Parenthood's operations would be rendered practically obsolete. And I guarantee the abortion rate would drop. 

Bingo. This bill won't stop abortions from happening. It's just going to make them more dangerous. It's going to lead to more dead women and babies.

How many women will die because of this law? How will the infant mortality rate be affected?

That's great, and I agree that there is room for discussion. Believe me I know healthcare is somewhat broken in this country. But abortion isn't healthcare, it's an industry of death that, according to statistics produced by even pro choice papers, is mostly fueled by abortions of convenience. Even one of those abortions is too many, especially with the prevalence of safe and effective birth control methods. If the Alabama law serves to overturn Roe V. Wade, then even as flawed as it is it will have served a valuble purpose for future generations.

Edited by Midwest LDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Godless said:

Bingo. This bill won't stop abortions from happening. It's just going to make them more dangerous. It's going to lead to more dead women and babies.

The bill will prevent many abortions from happening. How much is debatable, but a remarkable number of U.S. citizens are heavily influenced by what is legal. Consider gay marriage. Before SCOTUS said it was enshrined in our Constitution roughly 2/3rds opposed it. After the decision, within an incredibly few years that number has reversed. Since this bill is at the state level, and culture/media oppose it, the number of abortions stopped will likely be less dramatic. Nevertheless, there should be a significant drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Churches do some of our best work when we speak prophetically, .....---..... We speak prophetically. HUMAN LIFE IS VERY GOOD!

Scientifically human life appears to be extremely rare in our universe and may only exist on this planet.  From the strict stance of intelligence; such a rare commodity (human life) should be preserved, protected and encouraged (valued) above anything so rare and held valuable in the universe.  How can we claim human life (including our own) is of value if we do not value it!  - especially in its most innocent and vulnerable stage. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

On the other hand of this argument is something mentioned earlier in this thread. That the definition of human life, per the law, does not coincide with viewing a fetus as a human.

Whether or not I agree with that is again a mute point. But using this argument that the death of a fetus is just the same as the death of another human being cannot be backed up using law, which is what state and federal case law is based off of. So in this regard, the Alabama ruling should not be upheld until the definition of human life is changed. 

I need to point out that the reason the U.S. Code had to be defined that way was that it made it easier to apply various laws which would be ridiculous to apply to a fetus. 

For instance

  • A fetus could not have a birth certificate. 
  • A fetus could not have fingerprints taken under circumstances where "all persons" present need to be booked and processed.
  • A fetus is not really capable of committing virtually any crime.  But some laws require that all individuals or persons present need to be interrogated.

You get the idea.

And I just re-read the last line of that excerpt from the U.S. Code.  It indicates that there is no right or denial of rights for an unborn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mores said:

I need to point out that the reason the U.S. Code had to be defined that way was that it made it easier to apply various laws which would be ridiculous to apply to a fetus. 

For instance

  • A fetus could not have a birth certificate. 
  • A fetus could not have fingerprints taken under circumstances where "all persons" present need to be booked and processed.
  • A fetus is not really capable of committing virtually any crime.  But some laws require that all individuals or persons present need to be interrogated.

You get the idea.

And I just re-read the last line of that excerpt from the U.S. Code.  It indicates that there is no right or denial of rights for an unborn.

Just thinking - if we ever genetically engineer a human clone outside of the womb (as per numerous syfi scripts) such an individual would have no legal rights.  Perhaps it could already be argued that if a individual did not have a birth certificate or proof of birth - they have no legal rights - including the right to live.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Godless said:

That's a truly courageous and admirable mindset. But it shouldn't be mandated. My own mother chose to continue her pregnancy with my youngest brother at extreme risk to both of their lives, and we did come very close to losing both of them when he was born. I don't envy any woman who is put in that situation, and I would never dare to pass judgement on her decision in that moment. 

The more this debate drags out, the less I find myself liking the term "pro-life". You expect me to believe that the party that balks at investing public money in education (Alabama ranks 50th here, btw), seeks to slash programs like Medicaid and WIC, and has never once tried to fix our broken foster care system really cares about kids after they leave the womb?

You want a woman to carry a fetus to term under any circumstances, but what means are you willing to provide for her to ensure both she and her baby remain healthy throughout the process? Prenatal care isn't cheap, and there's a lot that can go medically wrong during a pregnancy. Should reproduction be a privilege reserved for those who can afford proper health care? At what point does "pro-life" include a woman whose pregnancy puts her life in immediate danger? At what point is abortion a mercy to a fetus with severe and irreparable medical complications like the ones you read about in stories like these? Conservatives aren't pro-life, they're pro-birth. They want women to deliver babies no matter the cost, because only the mother will have to worry about the cost (which will in turn have consequences for that child you cared so much about when it was in utero). 

If you want to prevent abortions, there are better ways to do it. Comprehensive sex education, expanded access to affordable health care, and expanded insurance coverage for birth control are all great ways to prevent pregnancies that could result in abortion, but weirdly enough I never hear conservatives talking up those solutions. Quite the opposite, in fact. 

 

The bill was designed that way deliberately. The Alabama (and Ohio and Georgia) legislature knew full well that this bill will get litigated. This is their way of getting Roe v. Wade back into the Supreme Court. At that that point, it won't matter who wins in 2020 because SCOTUS appointments are for life.

It might be more accurate to call abortion opponents “anti-murder” than “pro-life”.  Because yes, modern American conservatism is more concerned with making sure that life has an opportunity to flourish, than that it actually flourish by means of involuntary confiscations from unrelated third parties.

That being said, I would offer the following observations in response:

1). I can’t speak for Medicaid in every state.  I know that in Utah, if you are pregnant, you qualify for Medicaid until you are solidly within the realm of the middle class; and as I understand it, the middle class largely has access to contraception if they want it.  The poverty-ridden expectant mothers who don’t have Medicaid, are not those who didn’t avail themselves of existing state programs.  Moreover—I’m not positive, but I’m reasonably sure that fertility rates actually tend to rise the further down the economic scale you go. Moreover, many adoption programs reimburse pregnant women for their medical costs.  The decision to abort (barring the hard cases, obviously) seems to have less to do with what is and isn’t economically possible or the ongoing burdens of parenthood; and more to do with simply not wanting to go through the physical symptoms of pregnancy for the next nine months. 

2.  It’s not strictly true that conservatives want women to bear the full cost of unwanted children—first, because we love adoption; and second, because we love going after deadbeat dads.  This isn’t really a “we-nasty-white-men-want-to-control-all-the-wimminz” thing; it’s a “holy-fetch-we’re-living-through-a-holocaust-and-it-needs-to-end” thing.  

3.  As for preventing abortion:  progressives have gotten what they wanted.  They have their prophylactics in school vending machines; they’ve denied parents the tight to know if their daughters are in the pill; they’ve got school sex ed programs that literally teach middle schoolers how to select appropriate paraphernalia from the produce section of their local grocer; they’ve made The Pill so ubiquitous that it’s leaching into our water tables and very probably is behind the precipitous decline in the sperm counts of men in western nations. 

How much more do we have to give to the left before they finally say “golly gee willikers, maybe it’s time to quit killing babies now”?  And do progressives have any idea how—well, evil—it comes across, for them to try to leverage this issue into more spending for their pet social programs?  I mean, what would our reactions have been if the Rwandans had said “fine, we’ll stop this genocide as soon as you promise to take those nasty, nasty Tutsis off our hands.  Oh, and ten billion dollars would be nice, too, and if you don’t pony up then that just goes to show that you’re the bad guys, not us”?

4.  Re litigation:  the legislation is obnoxious, but let’s be blunt:  any restriction on abortion is going to result in litigation.  Utah just passed a restrictive regimen that banned abortion after 18 weeks but included exceptions for the hard cases—and its implementation has been stayed because the ACLU sued.  Heck, we passed a ban on the aborting of children due to Downs’ Syndrome diagnoses, over the “nay” votes of every. single. Democrat in the two used of our legislature.  There are plenty of degenerates who will fight tooth-and-nail against even the most benign, narrowly-tailored abortion restrictions; because they just plain like baby-killing.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this