So genius, you are telling me that ANY contraceptive is designed to kill a baby one month after it has been born?
Under present circumstances I don't mind you donating your time...but it would certainly not be ok for you to demand it of me.
So if a man decides he no longer wants to donate his time and money to caring for his kids (I'm talking about kids already born), you'd think it acceptable for him to kill them. Got it.
Good grief, you're a loon.
Your situation is worse than I thought - you're an ignoramous, a liar, a distorter, a person totally incapable of thought.
Here are the details of the dispute, Romney's actions, description of the contraceptive and its abortifacent effects. And here are Romney's explanations:
"YESTERDAY I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk. Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception...I have spoken with medical professionals to determine whether the drug contemplated under the bill would simply prevent conception or whether it would also terminate a living embryo after conception. Once it became clear that the latter was the case, my decision was straightforward."
I wonder if you'd quibble about calling a newly fertilized embryo a neonate? Wouldn't surprise me. You're that low.
So if a man decides he no longer wants to donate his time and money to caring for his kids (I'm talking about kids already born), you'd think it acceptable for him to kill them.
If his kids are brain dead the law allows him to do just that. If not, your "argument" has no relevance.
Got it.
Stop kidding yourself. The last thing you got was your rattle when it fell to the floor.