OK so Arizona just repealed its Civil War-era, pre-state admission to the Union, 1864 (yes, that is an “8”) ban re abortion, and must say methinks … that is really, really sad.
No debt owed to modernity there, oh-ho-ho-no.
But they did repeal it, so that’s something. Still … the laws in effect remain way too onerous.
She doesn’t want to be pregnant. Or if she does, she doesn’t want to be pregnant with that kid, for whatever reason.
Why is that so hard to accept/respect?
The old Horsemen in power are antiquated and out of touch, so much so that AZ’s Supremes would resort to ancient statutes on the books to try to [re-]chattelize (yes, my word so there) women …
further proof that the old guard needs to go.
And replace it with what, exactly?
Exactly my point. Pete said it best: the new boss is the same as the old boss. Sigh. Only methinks Generation Snowflake is worse … “I feel [insert delusion here], therefore validate me.” Double sigh.
Speaking of dead-minded, corrupted old men, an insurance company just denied coverage to newborn twin boys with a rare genetic disorder … no cure, specifically, but a drug could stop the advancement of the disease. Without it, the boys are likely to die before their 2nd birthday.
Which begs the question: where is this “culture of life” betwixt and between the premise of the anti-choice faction? And why is the ACF not advocating and agitating for universal health care?
Hmmm … inconsistent much?
Saw a video recently of Charlie Kirk (no relation) responding to an audience question about life beginning at first breath. Mr. Kirk (wisely) chose the strawman argument – life begins at conception – and asserted that if that isn’t a living baby in the womb, then what is it?
Methinks here is one of the places pro-choice advocates get twisted.
Just to end the argument – all life begins at conception. Conception is the very definition of life. Before conception there is just tissue / no issue (heh) so methinks that can be fairly settled.
The proper question to pose is two-fold: One, is there a right to life? The answer? No. Just ask death.
Secondly, clarify the correct question. Is there a right not to be killed? Answer? Absolutely.
Which begs two additional questions:
When does a person obtain this right, and can that right be forfeit?
Humans receive the right not to be killed at the same time we receive a soul: at first breath.
{Genesis 2:7}
And the right not to be killed after birth happens all the time … enter uninvited into a gun owner’s home and find out.
So yes, that means that abortion is perfectly unacceptable yet should not be regulated and remain available as a medical procedure all the way up until the moment of birth.
Because at no point in the pregnancy does her body stop being hers. And if she doesn’t want her body used to gestate a fetus, to grow a person, for whatever reason, then she has an absolute right to terminate.
Which never happens. Much like the whole “what about rape and incest” exception for abortion bans. Pregnancy arises from rape and/or incest is exceedingly rare. Most abortions are for convenience.
Which is unfortunate, and sad, and welcome to a fallen, corrupt world. Just one of the many prices we pay for the original sin coupled with the refusal of salvation.
There is that.