What law has the victim abused that enables you to judge her to be nothing more than society's incubator?
Nothing more? That's a bit hysterical. 9 months and an adoption agency is not such a burden when judged against taking the life of an innocent.
But that's a bit beside the point. The point as I have said before, is that the government has no way to sanction death except two: Just cause (war), or due process. Obviously, the child has no connection to war, so you must have some criminal act to levy against the child, and a method of due process.
Otherwise, this government at every level must protect life as the first of the enumerated rights its establishment defined. There simply is no recourse...
Nothing. But, in your worldview it is better to let one mother die than 10 guilty off the hook. Principled conservatism at its most revealing.
I said no such thing. The point is that there can be no quarter since that quarter, already granted, has been grievously abused. Obvious physical malady that would take both the woman and the child has never been the question - That is specifically what Reagan's law meant to reasonably cure. It is the abuse thereof that is the problem.
I hope you don't think you have the moral high ground here. All you have done is chosen to destroy the existing life.
I have done no such thing. And BOTH lives are 'existing'.
Maybe it's time to start leveling consequences on the fathers ---- not just in the case of rape or incest
In the case of real, bonafide rape or incest, I will happily pull the trigger myself, as any real man would.
---- but all unplanned pregnancies. Executing the sperm donor might just put an end to the whole abortion conundrum for once and for all.
Naw. The price for that historically has been marriage... And that's what it should be now.
