The Abortion Hypocrisy
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
Comments
115 responses to “The Abortion Hypocrisy”
-
Democrats and Republicans, as usual, are doing the same thing. They are taking the positions that they think will get them votes. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
Both sides are hypocrites. The fanatics on the Left will not agree to any limits, essentially including infanticide. The Pubbies are too scared to talk honestly because they’ll be called names by the fanatics. But an honest conversation would start with is it a life or not? And it is clear it is. In the 70s you could hide behind lack of knowledge. Not any more.
-
You state the Roman Catholic position well, failing to extend the argument to contraception, which they also oppose. The logical extension of the other position is no legal impediment to murdering a perfectly viable child the day before delivery, in fact the hour before (or after?) So tell me again where you’d draw the line in the law? Not in your own beliefs, but in the law? Hard cases make bad law. I don’t claim to know. The certainty of others at both ends does not convince.
So yes, we get a compromise position from a political debate.
Shall we do the same with the other Ten Commandments? Easy to do. Your friends have real problems with “honor thy parents” for example.
-
“The logical extension of the other position is no legal impediment to murdering a perfectly viable child the day before delivery…”
That is not the logical extension of the pro-choice position. Perfectly viable children are not aborted just before delivery. There are exceptional circumstances that justify late term abortions… to claim otherwise is disingenuous.
Your friends have real trouble with “commit adultery”…
-
Aborting a child the day before delivery is a c-section.
You do realize that you need a doctor to perform the procedure. So, not only do you have to find a woman who is pregnant and is willing to carry the child for 8 months, 29 days, 2 hours and 15 minutes, but she also has to find a medically licensed doctor … and here’s the tough part … who will take an appointment THAT day!
-
The national news last night had a story about a woman who left her newborn in the woods to die. No doctor necessary. It was her choice, right? An unwanted pregnancy, right?
-
A mental illness. This woman had a history of “hidden and concealed pregnancies and surprise births”. Are you suddenly for elimination of rights because of the actions of the mentally ill? I can point you to a much larger problem if that is how we are rolling these days…
-
“Are you suddenly for elimination of rights because of the actions of the mentally ill?”
You mean like when progressives call for more gun control and bans whenever a nut uses a gun? -
Exactly what I was getting at. Is that now the position on the Right… because there are way more cases of that problem than there are of killing newborns, you know…
-
Exactly what I was getting at. Is that now the position on the Right… because there are way more cases of that problem than there are of killing newborns, you know…
-
Seems like you’re stretching a bit looking for an objection.
It’s documented that the left wants to abuse everyones rights when the mentally ill misuse the right. Are you now saying that it’s wrong to do that?
-
If the level of restrictions place by the Right on abortion was placed on guns the Right would have a conniption (to put it mildly).
-
If the level of restrictions place by the Right on abortion was placed on guns the Right would have a conniption (to put it mildly).
-
That’s because the Bill of Rights doesn’t contain an amendment to protect abortion. Roe v Wade was an attempt to create a constitutional right out of thin air. That’s not how it is designed to work.
If you want a Constitutional Amendment in support of abortion, there’s a process to get one. Actually, there are two paths for starting the process. It can start in Congress, or a convention of states.
-
Are you saying all inalienable rights are specifically protected by the Constitution by name?
-
I’m saying that when you draw a direct comparison to a right specifically protected within the Bill of Rights, and wonder why something not mentioned at all in the Constitution is treated differently, you might consider the obvious.
“Are you saying all inalienable rights are specifically protected by the Constitution by name?”
Absolutely not, but the document that talks about unalienable rights is the Declaration of Independence which says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Getting your skull cracked open and brains sucked out doesn’t sound to me like “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Does it to you?
-
Again, late term abortions are not very common at all and are almost always not only justifiable but necessary (and tragic). I certainly consider the right to autonomy over one’s own body to be a right equal to (at a minimum) the right to own a firearm. That to me is self-evident.
-
You are entitled to your opinion, but most Americans don’t support late-term abortions except in rare circumstances.
-
By definition, late term abortions are rare circumstances… and yes, when they must happen, the mother needs to be able to go forward with the procedure without government interference.
-
-
When a ‘fetus’ is viable outside the mother’s womb, is it not also a human, with the “right to autonomy over [its] own body”?
-
I am comfortable with that. Do you then think that a mother must carry a fetus which has no chance of viability outside of the womb to full term through delivery?
-
No. But just to be safe I think more than one doctor’s opinion should be required to make that determination. Two independent doctors agreeing would satisfy my concerns.
-
As I pointed Tom to below, the Castle Doctrine requires no corroboration with LEO (let alone several independent LEOs) before deadly force is justified. As I have said to others here, do you not think a mother who has to go the route of a late term abortion is going through enough already? Let her and her doctors do what they need to do without second guessing or intervention. Btw, I am pretty certain that doctors and patients are 100% sure of their diagnosis before going down this path.
-
No required corroboration with LEO doesn’t mean you are free to act unilaterally. There must still be an IMMINENT threat to your life.
What the mother is going through does not give her the right to terminate an otherwise normal pregnancy by taking her child’s life. Being desperate for something does not give you the right to rob a store and kill the clerk to get it.
-
But one must be able to justify lethal force after the fact, or one goes to prison for murder. Or, at any rate, 12 independent opinions determine whether or not one is guilty of murder.
RE: I am pretty certain that doctors and patients are 100% sure of their diagnosis before going down this path: Do you know who Kermit Gosnell is?
-
-
-
-
Studies show that 80% of late-term abortions are elective.
Your right to autonomy over your body doesn’t give you the right to kill my body just because my existence makes you uncomfortable.
-
If we were asking for the right to kill someone simply because we would gain from it, you would be right to oppose it. But, it’s you who are claiming that right, so we oppose it.
However, the question is whether you think it’s OK to abuse everyone’s rights because the mentally ill misuse the right?
-
“But, it’s you who are claiming that right, so we oppose it.”
I thought you all were about the right to self-defense. Does that right not extend to a pregnant woman?
-
Of course a pregnant woman has the right to shoot you if you are trying to murder her.
-
Even if “you” are a fetus…?
-
If the only way to prevent the mother’s death is an abortion, then yes.
-
Well the standard for self defense is also “serious bodily harm”. It does sound like you would choose to force a mother to carry to term and deliver her child even when there is no chance of viability outside the womb. What say you there? Will you allow such a mother to have a late term abortion… thumbs up or down? Will see need her priest’s personal approval as well?
-
To answer that question, I have to know whether the fetus is a human being at the time of the abortion. Can you tell me when it becomes human and why it occurs then?
-
I am comfortable with the point of viability outside the womb.
-
Are you suddenly for elimination of rights because of the actions of the mentally ill?
Interesting question. I’m not, but what is your answer?
-
You seem to be in the minority in this regard… unless the right involves guns that is…
I am just trying to determine what the rules are… so if we are now saying “Yes!” to my question, I know where I will land.
-
My personal rules are pretty consistent. I cannot speak for others, but I do not think the actions of mentally ill persons should result in loss of any of our rights.
Of course, I have never used the actions of crazy people to justify my position on abortion law – or any other law for that matter.
-
I also don’t think that it is the actions of the mentally ill that argue for gun restrictions. It is the easy access that the mentally ill have to guns that argue for it. A distinction.
-
A distinction without a difference, perhaps. You are hair-splitting and playing a game of semantics in order to justify violating my rights based on the actions of the mentally ill.
It is what a violent mentally ill person does with a gun (the action), not the ease with which they can obtain one, which results in the deaths of others.
-
They are mentally ill. As such one can reasonably expect them to act unpredictably even violently. It is an issue of access very much. Do you think the laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally too restrictive then?
-
First, I want to make it clear that a large majority of people with mental illness are not violent and are not a danger to themselves or others.
RE: Do you think the laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally [ill] too restrictive then?
No, I think they are fine – which is why we do not need any more of them.
-
First, I want to make it clear that a large majority of people with mental illness are not violent and are not a danger to themselves or others.
RE: Do you think the laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally [ill] too restrictive then?
No, I think they are fine – which is why we do not need any more of them.
-
Were they not gun right restrictions passed due to the actions of a few mentally ill individuals (or more accurately to restrict gun access for the mentally ill)? So they are fine… but no more…? So you are contending the ones we have are effective…?
You are correct in your characterization of the mentally ill. They all too often get vilified in these sort of discussions. Kudos to you for making that point explicit.
-
Were they not gun right restrictions passed due to the actions of a few mentally ill individuals (or more accurately to restrict gun access for the mentally ill)? So they are fine… but no more…? So you are contending the ones we have are effective…?
You are correct in your characterization of the mentally ill. They all too often get vilified in these sort of discussions. Kudos to you for making that point explicit.
-
Were they not gun right restrictions passed due to the actions of a few mentally ill individuals (or more accurately to restrict gun access for the mentally ill)? So they are fine… but no more…? So you are contending the ones we have are effective…?
You are correct in your characterization of the mentally ill. They all too often get vilified in these sort of discussions. Kudos to you for making that point explicit.
That’s post birth. And we have protections in most States that would have allowed her to leave that child at a fire station, or hospital and walk away.
Forget life. Think asset. At some point in the development, the asset becomes of interest to society. Pick that point, exert society’s interest and commit society to all costs associated with providing society with that asset.
To do anything less is simple tyranny.
who will take an appointment THAT day!
Kermit Gosnell?
Well, not any more, because he is no longer a licensed physician and he’s in prison, but I’d bet he’d like to.
So, perhaps the next Kermit Gosnell? There’s bound to be more than one out there.
“The logical extension of the other position is no legal impediment to murdering a perfectly viable child the day before delivery…”
That is not the logical extension of the pro-choice position. Perfectly viable children are not aborted just before delivery. There are exceptional circumstances that justify late term abortions… to claim otherwise is disingenuous.
Your friends have real trouble with “commit adultery”…
-
Everybody has real trouble with all ten. But I’m more Calvinist than Catholic. Dick said drawing a line makes one a hypocrit. Drawing a line at the third trimester is drawing a line.
-
Everybody has real trouble with all ten. But I’m more Calvinist than Catholic. Dick said drawing a line makes one a hypocrit. Drawing a line at the third trimester is drawing a line.
-
This is what you do to mothers by drawing that line:
-
I agree. Once one starts drawing lines, there is no basis for them because any line is arbitrary. And by agreeing to an arbitrary line, one has forfeited the moral position.
-
We could have no abortion laws, which some favor.
But such laws are apparently a political necessity in a democracy.
-
If by political necessity, you mean enabling one to pick the pockets of others under the guise of running for office, well then, we are in agreement, and the SCOTUS has planted a bumber crop of pickpockets.
-
-
But don’t we draw lines all of the time?
Immoral behavior damages the soul. Unethical behavior damages personal relationships. Illegal behavior damages society.
How many times have we heard others prescribe that an action is immoral, unethical, but not illegal? Not including those deemed highly patriotic, of course.
-
Dick Hall-Sizemore:
“Once one starts drawing lines, there is no basis for them because any line is arbitrary. And by agreeing to an arbitrary line, one has forfeited the moral position.”Not one of your best arguments.
Just take a look at the penal code and you will see “arbitrary” lines drawn all over the place. What choice to we have?
Sex with a child is wrong, but where’s the line? Should we not have a line for age of consent? Where do we get it? Where’s the bright line?
Steeling is wrong, but should I go to jail for taking a penny? Should the penalty for steeling a penny be the same as grand larceny? How do we arrive at the line for grand larceny?
-
-
Most of the people lamenting the overturning of Roe V Wade don’t actually support what it said.
“During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state’s interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the right to privacy. As a result, the state may prohibit abortions unless an abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the pregnant person.”
I would argue that science has advanced since then, and an earlier date is justified based on viability, the baby’s ability to feel pain, etc.
I agree that certainty is often questionable. However, abortion, at its root, is a moral question. Therefore, certainty must be at either end. Anything less would be arbitrary and a compromise of one’s morals for the sake of a political compromise.
This is where I would draw the line (and I expect to take some heat): prohibit all abortions except in the cases in which the mother’s life is endangered and those in which the fetus is diagnosed with a condition that would result in it not being able to survive outside of the womb. I have lately adopted the latter position after reading of a tragic case in Florida. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2023/florida-abortion-law-deborah-dorbert/ And there have been reports of similar cases.
-
I wish that the Supreme Court had not overturned Roe. But that is a practical position, not a moral one in a democracy. It should be decided politically.
Politics is the art of convincing people to support a position.
Neither extreme on abortion is likely to ever draw a majority nationwide. But that won’t stop politicians on both sides from using it to turn out their base.
I think attempts at federal law may prove a mistake for reasons of political stability. Do we want federal law on abortion to change dramatically every decade as majorities switch?
That is why leaving it to the states, as the Justices did, is a wise democratic solution.
Most states are red or blue by significant margins. Each can come to a position that the majority of their people support. Those laws should prove relatively stable, with changes at the margins rather than regular reversal.
Purple states like Virginia also have abortion laws. Ours have been in place with only minor changes since 1975.
Democrats, far more activist legislatively than Republicans, may try to change them, but I expect them to remain stable here.
Democrats will feature abortion as their defining principle in elections because its all they’ve got to win at the margins in a politically divided country and state.
-
“Democrats, far more activist legislatively than Republicans, may try to change them, but I expect them to remain stable here.”
Youngkin and fellow Republicans have stated openly that they WILL change them if given the majority.
-
-
I appreciate the clarification of your beliefs and where you would draw the line. What I can’t comprehend is why you are most condemning of those with whom you are closest to in terms of what the law should be.
For me, a middle point is not a compromise. It’s what I honestly believe is right. Let’s look at the extremes.
I cannot excuse the murder of a baby about to be born, that’s clearly a human being.
Conversely, I believe it would be a travesty of justice to charge a lab technician who disposed of fertilized eggs (at the request of the parents) with murder. Eggs aren’t people. Or do you disagree? Is disposing of a fertilized egg murder?
You seem uncomfortable with gray, but gray exists in nature. The germs you kill on your counter top and dishes are primitive and do not have the same rights as primates, dogs, elephants, etc.
I respect all life, but laws regarding cruelty are reserved for higher forms of life. There’s no bright line.
Dick, you set up a partisan straw man then use it to denigrate moderates of both parties (and the rest of us) who are attempting to strike a balance that accommodates both life and choice.
Why do you choose to foster conflict and extremes to the detriment of most of us?
-
Because his partisan to his core and not really “moderate”.
-
Because his partisan to his core and not really “moderate”.
But it’s worse than that Dick. In Texas the law was craftily worded so that the hospital lawyers could not assure the hospital staff that even removing a dead fetus did not exempt them from criminal liability.
They sent the woman home with a dead fetus to become septic THEN her life was at risk and they could “follow the law”.
That’s a moral law for you.
-
As I said above, I would support an abortion in that case. Just because I oppose abortion does not mean that I support irresponsible laws like those of Texas.
-
Alas, that puts you in a minority of the minority, and sadly, an unheard minority in the eyes (ears?) of Red State legislators.
-
Your response to the single case in Texas is decidedly different from your views on Republican limits to abortion.
In this instance, a single case is noteworthy, but when Republicans seek to restrict the killing of viable babies, you treat such efforts with nothing but contempt because:
“As I have pointed out before, that limit is not going to prevent many abortions in Virginia. According to the CDC, only 2.2 percent of abortions in Virginia in 2020 were performed after the 15th week.”
Every case matters, and laws should be written as carefully as possible for the protection of women’s rights and the rights of the unborn. Laws can never be perfect, but we should seek the best we are able to write and get adopted into law.
If the Texas law truly prevents the abortion of a dead fetus, it should be changed.
-
Morals have no place in the law.
I demand “equal protection under the law”! A woman who can afford to travel from a State with a total abortion ban to Europe has a fetus that is not protected by the law equal to the fetus of a woman without such means.
Rich fetuses are the victims of discrimination!
-
Humm, most laws are based on a distinction between right and wrong. That is a moral choice.
As a nation we are better off not writing those moral choices into law on the basis of a faction’s idea of what is moral or immoral.
I personally believe in both life and choice, but those are just my morals. That to me leaves room for some limits and some choice.
-
What? How is the Tax Code based on “right and wrong”? That’s a huge chunk of “the law”.
How is the distance of a bar or the point of sale of alcohol from a church based on right or wrong?
Most of the law is capricious and designed to advantage one party in the control, exploitation, or censorship of others. Then there are laws just to make somebody feel good.
Ethics. Those are your ethics. Morals are your religious laws.
As soon as you bring religion into the discussion you reduce it to the level of a 4-year old.
-
Ethics. Those are your ethics. Morals are your religious laws.
The definition of ethics is “the moral principles that govern a person’s behavior or the conducting of an activity”.
The two are inextricably tied together.
Also, you just made poor old Immanuel Kant roll over in his grave.
-
Nope, you can be immoral but highly ethical. Consider Irma La Douce.
-
Nope, you can be immoral but highly ethical. Consider Irma La Douce.
-
I just Kant see how that can be.
I recommend you make an appointment with your Deontologist.
-
-
-
It is not a contest between “honesty” and “hypocrisy” Dick.
“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”
― Otto von Bismarck
-
So we compromise on how many fetuses (babies) we kill?
-
Kind of like saying murder is always wrong… unless the State decides it is right in some cases…
-
War by other means?
-
If that is the way compromise is defined, the alternative is no laws at all, because we will never get political agreement of either of the two extreme positions.
-
First, only a small minority of Republicans believe that a fertilized egg should have the rights of a fully developed human. Most of those, do so for religious reasons. That’s not my view.
Recently, I stated in another thread that one’s views on the Bible should not determine abortion legislation. (That’s also true of other religious works.) I believe you also support a separation of church and state, do you not? I do, and therefore believe abortion laws should be based on science, not religion.
The development of a human in the womb of the mother is a continuum from a fertilized egg to a newborn baby. The United States isn’t the only country that seeks to find an appropriate point along that line where the interests of the baby in the womb should take precedence. Beating heart, brain development, etc. This is science, not religion.
“In most European countries, as illustrated in the map and in the country-by-country table below, abortion is generally permitted within a term limit below fetal viability (e.g. 12 weeks in Germany and Italy, or 14 weeks in France and Spain). ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe#Western_Europe
-
“Nancy” notwithstanding, a bunch of men in this argument looks pretty stupid… 🙂
-
Only the name is transgender. We’re all Bozos on this bus.
-
Probably will hear from the women in November…
-
Not sure it looks stupid. I think unfortunate is more accurate.
Looks to me like most of those who comment regularly are commenting. The regulars who haven’t yet commented may be busy. They may have…..what the word?
Oh yea, a life!
We’re hypocrites, are we? (Shrugs shoulders).
If you’re trying to guilt (or goad) Republicans into an overreaction, I doubt it will work. The GOP is much more the common-sense party than the Democrats. It’s thought this issue through. Common-sense indicates you advance policies that can win approval.
The GOP and pro-life supporters have to work with the voting base we have, not the one we wish we had. A 12-15 week ban can win approval in Virginia.
Unlike Democrats, we understand we have to work with the electorate. We cannot simply dictate policy to it, and expect the hoi polloi to comply. Americans are not a hoi polloi.
Pro-choice advocates have every right to demand easy access to contraception, plus abortion services up to the 12th or 15th month. The pro-life side will have to compromise here, too.
If we come up with a policy that activists on both sides are somewhat unhappy with, but can live with, then that’s a good compromise.
I regard myself as basically pro-choice. But unless you ban all abortions under any circumstances or all the doctor to crush the infant’s head when it comes out of the birth canal, you are drawing lines.
I’m not sure where I’d vote to draw those lines but somewhere around the point where a fetus experiences pain seems to be a good starting point. Keep in mind that the left worries about serial killers feeling pain during execution.
Legislators draw lines every day. And but for the arrogance of Harry Blackman and company, lines would have been drawn decades ago just like they were in every other country in the world. Most constitutional lawyers knew that, irrespective of their position on abortion as a policy matter, Roe was poorly decided. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg found it flawed.
What should have happened was for Congress to pass a bill protecting and regulating abortion. That could have been done during the first two years of either Clinton’s or Obama’s presidency, most especially when Obama sat in the Oval Office. But despite their campaign rhetoric, neither made the effort needed to work out a compromise position among the Democrats and those Republicans who support a pro-choice position. But they could have and should have.
The law would have been challenged and ultimately reviewed by SCOTUS. However, the review would have taken place years ago, with a different Court. Had Congress passed and either Clinton or Obama signed the bill, the Court would have upheld it. Would the extremes on both sides be angry? Of course. But abortion simply would not be a flash-point issue with most people today.
The profilers care little about the embryo/fetus. It is just a mechanism to punish women. Spend five minutes with any prolifer and they quickly transition from showing concern about babies to being a raving misogynist.
-
“The profilers…”
Freudian or intentional…?… lol…
-
Still does not explain why pro-lifers are so interested in the intimate life of women but not men.
-
Not so much hypocrisy as frog boiling…
Life? America’s society doesn’t give a rat’s patoot about life. If we did, we wouldn’t depend on charity to provide food, shelter, and care to the down and out. Those would be provided without question or condition as a shared burden, and not rely on the “milk of human kindness”.
We’re talking about an asset. Eminent Domain. We’re just doing what Americans have always done — seizing property for society’s use and doing it “on the cheap”.
Eventually, we will be forced to define “just compensation”.
Determining the point at which a developing baby begins to have rights separate from the mother is difficult, but it’s essential that we do our best to find a legislative answer to that question.
I wish I had the definitive answer, but somewhere between week 5 and week 16 would make sense to me.
Week 5: The neural tube (brain, spinal cord and other neural tissue of the central nervous system) forms. The tiny “heart” tube will beat 110 times a minute by the end of the fifth week.
Week 16: The fetus has lips and its ears are developed enough that it can hear you talk. Even though its eyes are closed, the fetus can react to light by turning away from it.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/7247-fetal-development-stages-of-growth
Good points, but politically you’re wrong. T0 me, Youngkin is right, this isn’t a battle of absolute positions–either 100% for or against. I’ve been pro life for decades and concluded the absolutism of much of the movement has led to little progress. Absolute bans sound good, but politically won’t get far. Right now polls I think show support for abortion beyond 5-6 months and partial birth is very low. Why not seek those politically attainable bans first?
Interesting that most of the 41+ comments are those authored by males and fail to discuss the rights of women in matters of abortion. Much emphasis on morals, a bit on ethics but nothing about the rights of the pregnant woman. An object lesson?
-
Rights? What rights?
-
the right to kill an innocent life, of course.
-
The right of bodily autonomy, ya mean.
-
Which your “autonomy” means killing an innocent life. Now do the experimental Covid “vaccine.”
Let’s see…which bodily autonomy should weigh more…
Kill the unborn or refuse to participate in a medical experiment against your will?
-
-
-
-
Comments from females are welcome. Should they be compelled to comment?
If only comments from women are valid, should discussions about gun restrictions be limited to those of us who own guns?
And for the record, aborted babies are both male and female. I assume in relatively equal numbers.
I agree. I’m pro-life and I don’t like the idea of settling with a 12-week abortion ban. Partisan “wins” don’t interest me.
To me it’s not a matter of “does ‘life’ begin at conception or birth or some arbitrary point in between”, but rather the potential for life begins at the time of conception. For me, ending that potential at 12 weeks is just as wrong as it is at 13 weeks.
-
Keywords: FOR ME
Abortion bans cannot show a societal benefit. In fact, they are detrimental. They are driven entirely on religious belief.
You are assuming everyone who is pro-life believes life begins at birth, I do not. I do not know when it begins. I do not think anyone does.
And as such I believe it behooves us to act with a justified caution and to come to a solution which is both just AND politically possible.
This is hardly shocking.
Or am I to believe that, for example, all Democrat who are anti-death penalty are absolute pacifists of an almost Jainist variety?
Politics is the art of possible.
If refusing to hold an absolutist position from which you cannot pass legislation just so that you can cover every rare situation is hypocrisy then color me a hypocrite.
-
Ah, but what color should we use when the absolutist DOES pass such legislation, imposing the untenable on everyone? I’m thinking chartreuse.
Abortion bans and limitations are like Blue Laws. They are driven entirely by religious belief, have no provable societal benefit, and horribly impact women’s health and rights. The proof of this last condition is beginning to show itself almost immediately after such bans are passed with maternal death rates. The proof of the first two is in the almost universal use of the word “moral” whenever anyone attempts to justify them.
-
If morals are solely based on religious beliefs, then people who have no religious beliefs cannot have morals – and I know that is not the case.
Therefore, morals do not have to be religion-based.
-
Amoral. That’s me. I’ll not cheat any man, not because I fear for my soul or the wrath of the gods, but because of a loss of self-respect and because legal retribution can be expensive.
As was once asked of Uncle Duke, “How much would you charge for an immoral, unethical, illegal but highly patriotic act?”
“$100,00o in Krugerrands but I don’t work with children or Albanians.”
-
That’s not very diverse, equitable, or inclusive…
-
-
-
There are a several economist and other who argue that the U.S. would be better off with some blue laws. More people getting a day off on the weekend would probably help many families and would probably help the survival of some brick and mortar retailers.
-
But that would not be a Blue Law since it has a socially redeeming grace, “good for the economy and families.”
An example of a Blue Law, as it was here in Virginia, was you could buy a lightbulb on Sunday, but not a fuse. That was Virginia in 1960s.
-
In the 1960’s, a retail store in Texas could not be open on both Saturday and Sunday. That would mean that retail workers would not have to work both days on a weekend. In the big divide between education and healthcare as the industries with the most job growth, healthcare pays better because the working conditions are worse.
-
-
How many females in the above debate? ( I am thinking Nancy Naive is a “he”) I am pragmatist, pro-choice but something like 15-weeks makes sense to me, of course, with exceptions for medical/etc. However, I believe my female better half considers as short as 15-weeks an atrocious violation of womens rights by conservative white men who think they have the right to control women’s bodies.
-
Well, every time I begin to think that we males should take a backseat because “it’s a woman’s health issue”, I recall “Raising Arizona” and remember that what’s bothering them will eventually become our own health issue.
Any limit shows that men think of women as fickle helpless creatures. I trust that a woman intuitively understands the commitment and aren’t likely to decide that at 24 weeks, or 32 weeks, to terminate without GD good reason.
“Thou Shalt Not Abort”. Must’ve been one of the five…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmZFGw5CeWE
BTW, is that the original Greek biblical text in the subtitles?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.