I've noticed that the SAME "conservatives" who say "We want to get Government off your back"......want to get Government "into her uterus." BTW, Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor to the SCOTUS.....both of whom have helped uphold Roe v. Wade.
what republicans want what's next, they start requiring mandatory vaginal probes, oh wait, Trumps VP been there done that .
The other thing I mentioned is something you don't hear in the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Glenn Beck Version of "The History of Reagan".... despite the Bork nomination (which The Gipper caved on).... the TWO Supreme Court Justices that he nominated?....BOTH have helped uphold Roe v. Wade. But "Reagan Myth-Making" tells them that "what Reagan SAID" is somehow more important than "What Reagan ACTUALLY DID." (See my Signature Line below on the "amnesty" issue, as well)
I tend to be extremely cautious towards rhetoric that is purely sentimental. It contributes nothing to the discussion. It's less of an argument and more of a propaganda strategy. The fact that it was said by a politician only makes it more unreliable.
This quote is dumb. Nobody who isn't born can be in favor of anything. At all. They can't be pro-choice, they can't be anti-abortion. So all Reagan pointed out is that you have to be born to have an opinion. This is not and has never been the profound statement some folks confusingly think it is.
I have never met a person born of rape support rape either.... trying to say they would support it cause without it they would not exists would be crazy I have no issue locking up racists for LWOP even if it means some people will not be born cause of that I have no issue letting rape victims decide NOT to have their rapists babies .
I've noticed that most people against letting women control their own bodies get upset when someone tells them someone wants to control theirs.
I noticed that those who are willing commit to raising children are the only ones who genuinely value the unborn child's life.
That's how oppression always works. You have one group who advocates for taking away the rights from another group who doesn't have a say. The "Reproductive Choice" movement is especially bad because it takes away all rights from the most defenseless and vulnerable, before they even have a chance to enter into the world. Well yes, in one sense it is a redundant observation. Obviously those who are unborn can't be for abortion, because they've never had time or experience yet to be able to develop an opinion on anything. But it's also saying to the pro-choice crowd "put yourself in that person's shoes". It's really easy to advocate for abortion when you yourself aren't going to have to enter a uterus again. This is the same self-interest that's behind grandfather clauses in new pieces of occupational legislation we see so often. Everyone feels they personally won't be affected, but don't mind if the new people will get subject to these licensing burdens. It's a small club, and it's just a part of human nature I suppose. But that doesn't make it right. And folks who do believe in it shouldn't have two. Your logic still fails because women who have two abortions are getting more than one vote.
WHAT!!! """"Your logic still fails because women who have two abortions are getting more than one vote"""""
That's an interesting perspective. So you're not in favor of rights for babies? (And I assume you have no qualms about pulling the plug on people in comas)
You should know, I'm going through my father continuing to die from cancer. If it were up to me, I'd give him the whole bottle of morphine at the house, & let him die in peace.