Question: Does Stupack Have a Valid Ethical and Jurisprudential Point?
( Back )
Answer #1:
If people are too irresponsible or inept to use condoms taxpayers should not be burdened with cost for abortion. Even animals care for their young on their own.Answer #2:
"Here's my answer: Because we want our U.S. Code Annotated to embody a decent respect for the feelings and opinions of all Americans, or as close to that as possible."ORLY. Do they care how many people were against the wars and don't want their tax dollars to pay for that? Of course not!
I really can't express how strongly I disagree with this and think it's typical shooting-themselves-in-the-foot Dem Party wrong-headed BULLSH!T without getting my account deleted. I think he's 100% wrong.
Answer #3:
Navy this is a bitter complex issue, One that does not take lightly any input as to why orwhy not one defends or does not defend a woman's right to choose or not to choose, I
must admit I'm a died in the wool fence sitter on this issue. I believe in aborting in the
case of Rape, Incest, or Medical reasons to save the life of the carrier of the child.
To just walk into a Clinic for no other reason than to abort for the lack of contraception
or just a dumb ass bad choice, My money should not ever have to pay for that act of
irresponsibility.
You understand full well the social implications of bad choice, I deal with them all day long,
as you did, But in the position that you have outlined Re: Stupak. I am in complete agreement
with him.
** Powered by Yahoo Answers