Canada provides the example of an individual's liberty being respected without impersonal State bureaucrats intruding to prohibit her from making such personal decisions in consultation with family, friends, and medical and spiritual advisers.
www.foxnews.com
The problem with abortions is the individuals who abuse it.Canada provides the example of an individual's liberty being respected without impersonal State bureaucrats intruding to prohibit her from making such personal decisions in consultation with family, friends, and medical and spiritual advisers.
Authoritarian decrees that impose one's personal preferences upon everyone else are not everyone's cup of tea.
On the eve of the 49th anniversary of Roe v. Wade,It is hardly surprising that governments in most advanced, democratic nations are not allowed to arrogate such personal prerogatives, yet some prefer that the United States join Chile, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Vatican City and Malta in the State dictating to women.
31 percent want to see the Supreme Court overturn the landmark abortion case.
Sixty-three percent prefer to let the landmark case stand.
Fox News Poll: While majority still supports Roe, opposition ticks up to new high
Support for toppling Roe v. Wade is at a new high, yet twice as many voters still want it to stand.
... as well as those who try to impose their opinion on others concerning what is "abuse."
Your personal opinion in no way supports State intrusion that would force Americans to have too many children that they can't afford to take care of.
I have not come to a final decision on this matter. On one hand I respect the argument that all human life should be protected but am not certain that I hold a simular belief. I tend to think that some lives should not be protected in the interest of improving the Human race. Additionally I think it may be the only viable option of population control.
A woman should have the freedom make an informed decision in such private matters without bureaucratic coercion compelling her to submit to a State edict - if and until the gestative stage when an actual person has developed and societal considerations obtain.
For the greater part women know the consequence of insemination; and being the gate-keepers of pussy, they therefore control conception. In all but rape, they have manifest destiny over their own womb. Hang up your insipid tendency to remove agency from these women by granting them the abhorrent privilege of murdering the defenseless, for the sake of convenience. Or grant such privilege to all.
You appear to sit in moral judgement as a pretext for your craving for the coercive power of the State to impose your personal preferences upon everyone else.
I welcome judgment commensurate to my peers. Bring it on…
You can pretend that a mindless, microscopic amalgam of cells is a person, but why do you need to resort to the coercive power of the State and your bureaucrats to impose your compulsion to seize control of wombs, rather than respect the privacy of women making moral personal decisions with the advice of loved ones and trusted medical and spiritual advisers?
Because if you believe those cells are a person, or more accurately potential person, then you also believe it is murder to kill them. That is using the logic that all human life is to be protected. I'm not sure that should be the case.
If you believe that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is a person, you can scratch your head vigorously, shed a few cells, and socialize whenever you feel like doing so.
Dear Moron,
