Roger Evans, Planned Parenthood’s senior director for litigation and law, told me over the phone that his main objection is to “the notion that the government has a role in deciding what are fair reasons and unfair reasons for a woman to have an abortion.”
When something appears to be inconsistent in your enemy’s behavior,
step back and look for another goal, one that IS consistent.
Destroying the family and implementing global communism, perhaps? That would be consistent.
Being against all principles of Christianity?
That’s consistent.
Why? Because Social Security, Medicare, and the pension funds will be broke, and we "elder" women will be of no use to anyone (except ourselves, as if that would matter.) And that's largely because my age cohort, and the next and the next, aborted the tens of millions of future Americans who would have been the young people in the workforce paying the taxes and fueliong the economy to support everyone (including older females.)
So, mark my words, the survivors of the Aborted Generations are going to find ways to dispose of the Aborter Generations.
Appalling. But there's a grim justice in it.
GENOCIDE is the correct term, abortion is a PC term.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Surely that would be "faux feminist cistern"...
The ones objecting aren’t really objecting in principle, they’re objecting because the selection in a less than “enlightened” society has worked against their sex. Were abortions disproportionately distributed toward male children they’d be just fine with it. There is a corollary to the infantile locution “Sometimes, freedom means we have to live with the possibility of icky things.” - sometimes morality means that we have to live without convenient things, and abortion is a convenience without which modern feminism would be unrecognizable.