Love your work Matt and appreciate the courage of taking on this topic.
The topic is very emotional for all involved. And each fact pattern is unique to that situation. I've heard compelling arguments from both sides and rarely is an opinion changed. Which maybe there isn't a "right answer" other than how do we (to borrow Clinton's p…
Love your work Matt and appreciate the courage of taking on this topic.
The topic is very emotional for all involved. And each fact pattern is unique to that situation. I've heard compelling arguments from both sides and rarely is an opinion changed. Which maybe there isn't a "right answer" other than how do we (to borrow Clinton's phrase) make abortions "safe, legal and rare". e.g. will we criminalize abortions? Even if we do, that hasn't stopped and won't stop them, just likely make them less safe, having the affect of risking the lives of pregnant women. Is that pro life?
Currently, the phrase "pro life" seems inappropriate. It seems "pro birth" is more appropriate. In addition to the list of things Randall asks, I'd add a few. None of which actually require any time or money, i.e. an even lesser commitment than Randall. Would you support laws/officials that deny expanding health care (access) to children? That deny child care credits? That don't require vaccines/masks when deemed necessary to protect the life of another? That aim to reduce legal immigration for parents seeking a better life for their children? That don't assist (in some way) in providing affordable child care so parents can work? etc...
How does Randall feel about two wrongs making a right, i.e. are rape and incest appropriate exceptions?
On a different vein, I'd also ask. If one believes this issue is best left for the states, then why is the state in a better position than the federal government to decide what's best in that situation? Conservatives believe that the best decision are made by those closest to the issue. If the state is closer to the issue than the federal government, the natural extension would seem to be isn't the family/mother/doctor closer to the issue than the state? Or why not the county/city? The fundamental legal question seems less to be is abortion OK or not, BUT WHO DECIDES? It seems disingenuous (or maybe it's just "convenient") to say "the state gets to decide" not the federal government, not the city, county or individual. Why is the state the best "decider" (to borrow a Dubya term)?
Again, thanks for the courage to add this to your repertoire of topics.
Love your work Matt and appreciate the courage of taking on this topic.
The topic is very emotional for all involved. And each fact pattern is unique to that situation. I've heard compelling arguments from both sides and rarely is an opinion changed. Which maybe there isn't a "right answer" other than how do we (to borrow Clinton's phrase) make abortions "safe, legal and rare". e.g. will we criminalize abortions? Even if we do, that hasn't stopped and won't stop them, just likely make them less safe, having the affect of risking the lives of pregnant women. Is that pro life?
Currently, the phrase "pro life" seems inappropriate. It seems "pro birth" is more appropriate. In addition to the list of things Randall asks, I'd add a few. None of which actually require any time or money, i.e. an even lesser commitment than Randall. Would you support laws/officials that deny expanding health care (access) to children? That deny child care credits? That don't require vaccines/masks when deemed necessary to protect the life of another? That aim to reduce legal immigration for parents seeking a better life for their children? That don't assist (in some way) in providing affordable child care so parents can work? etc...
How does Randall feel about two wrongs making a right, i.e. are rape and incest appropriate exceptions?
On a different vein, I'd also ask. If one believes this issue is best left for the states, then why is the state in a better position than the federal government to decide what's best in that situation? Conservatives believe that the best decision are made by those closest to the issue. If the state is closer to the issue than the federal government, the natural extension would seem to be isn't the family/mother/doctor closer to the issue than the state? Or why not the county/city? The fundamental legal question seems less to be is abortion OK or not, BUT WHO DECIDES? It seems disingenuous (or maybe it's just "convenient") to say "the state gets to decide" not the federal government, not the city, county or individual. Why is the state the best "decider" (to borrow a Dubya term)?
Again, thanks for the courage to add this to your repertoire of topics.