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

To: freerepublicchat; Brian Kopp DPM; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; Coleus; narses; xzins; TheOldLady; ...
This has nothing to do with genetics and the idea that genetics should inform decisions about contraception and abortion.

NOBODY was talking about eugenics.

Eugenicists believe they know, a priori, who should have families and who should not.

Yes, and you have proposed this very thing.

That's a different position from that of saying that individuals not in a position to take on family responsibilities should not have children.

That's fine to say, but you wanted to MANDATE who could and could not have children.

52 posted on 07/09/2014 2:36:43 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]


To: wagglebee
That's fine to say, but you wanted to MANDATE who could and could not have children.

Now you sound like a feminist objecting to the Hobby Lobby decision.

Predicating public assistance on the use of contraception is not the same thing as saying people can't have children.

People can still have those children but they shouldn't expect someone else to support them.

55 posted on 07/09/2014 2:43:42 PM PDT by freerepublicchat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | 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