At the end of the day who made the choice to get pregnant in the first place. If you play the game and take chances there is always a price to pay. Should it be women who pay the price or should the future women in the womb pick up the tab?
I know Roe v. Wade was this man made law that allowed women to decide what they want to do with their bodies.
And last month a wacko by the name of Lindsay Siler sent me an email stating: ... hundreds of thousands of people tuned in to witness the ugly efforts to strip womens rights away. I have to tell you that I never quite understood how this is only about womens rights.
And let me be clear I am totally in favor of abortion especially if it involves a Democrat and or a liberal. To make the argument that an innocent child is being executed would be as futile as arguing that CO2 could not possibly be directly related to any form of climate change.
So it seems like the first trimester was acceptable as the cut-off date for the execution. In laymans terms thats about 3 months or 90 days or 12 weeks. So in some states this is 20 weeks 24 weeks and Texas is actually the third trimester. And today with the morning after pill being dispensed in gum ball machines is there really any need for abortions?
But we had this black physician in Philadelphia doing partial birth abortions He was the go to guy if it was too late to get an abortion any where else. And if a woman didnt die in the process he would probably be free today to continue doing late term abortions.
In his case he would actually deliver the baby and then he took the liberty of cutting the spinal cord causing the death of the born fetus. Which was actually a viable baby. And thats ok. He was doing a service and he was helping out a woman that was in trouble and chose to have sex but chose not to have the baby live. Maybe the time was not convenient!
But what about the women staff in this doctors office. They had to know that this doctor was executing the baby after it was delivered. How many of these women were mothers or had mothers. If it was a puppy would they have protested. So womens rights be damned!
The other problem with this case was the woman that died. Most of his patients allegedly lived in poverty. That p word is the great equalizer for liberal arguments. But the reason she died was that she reacted adversely to the medication and died. The question is to create wiggle room under the womans life is in danger provision" was this doctor administering drugs to induce some kind of reaction so the baby could be legally aborted as late term. But I didnt hear any discussion on that issue. And there were no protests from liberal organizations that this was wrong. It wasnt an abortion. It was murder. The doctor should have killed the baby in the womb then it would have been legal. Why did he deliver the baby first?
So where was Lindsay when this baby was legally murdered? Even Planned Parenthood said it was wrong. I thought it was about womens rights. What was wrong? Do you mean the baby had rights. What if the baby was a female?
The viability issue that Roe v. Wade imagined was that the baby must be able to live outside the womb. If you dont cut that spinal cord I betcha there will be living going on.
From a societal point of view there came from all of this the notion that a man father of the child the sperm donor would have no say whether the baby lives or dies. It always struck me funny. If the baby was born the father was legally obligated to pay. But when it came to signing the order of execution for the baby the father had no rights.
And since most of these babies are female doesnt the female rights of the unborn baby extend to the same liberal rights created by Roe v. Wade? I guess it is about certain female rights but not all females!
Since Roe v. Wade about 54.5 million abortions have been executed. About 10 million were black and about 27.3 were female.
Another funny twist to all of this is that the fertilization of the baby that brought this case to the Supreme Court was born and put up for adoption. The case took three years to get the liberal Supremes to cast their vote for execution. And now the plaintiff is rumored as being a pro-lifer. I guess the wheels of chance can always be confusing when we want the courts to play God.
At the end of the day who made the choice to get pregnant in the first place. If you play the game and take chances there is always a price to pay. Should it be women who pay the price or should the future women in the womb pick up the tab?