Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gene Eric

To some it would be. To other, understandable. So for your edification, why deny this pill to those who can become pregnant at ages under fifteen? Then I pointed out a story where a girl who’s fourteen killed her baby. The argument is not about abortion as some previous poster couldn’t comprehend the written word in English, but about the availability of this pill. It is not a pro/con argument re: abortion. It’s an argument of priorities of age. Children as young as nine have become pregnant.


50 posted on 04/30/2013 7:07:10 PM PDT by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: SkyDancer

So you’re saying children as young as nine who’ve gotten pregnant should also be able to use the morning after pill WHICH IS AN ABORTIFACIENT. GOT IT???

It prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. Kills it.

So your complaint with this pill is only that there is a cut off age? It should be available to the vast hosts of girls under 15 who get pregnant and want to kill the bany right quick before they’d have to get an abortion?


52 posted on 04/30/2013 7:11:02 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson