gistech1978
Diamond Member
- Aug 30, 2002
- 5,047
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
glenn1 - you're a much more reasonable person than I gave you credit for To be honest, I was simply trying to point out that there's a price to be paid for taking a hardline anti-abortion stance. Whether it's in the U.S. or abroad, a lot of women will die from botched abortions. Outlawing them simply doesn't make them go away. My point, and I think this is important, is that the Bush administration (and those that support his pro-life policies) are going to have to face the deaths of tens of thousands of women. While (in their eyes) we may save the lives of unborn, we sacrifice the lives of these women. Is this an equitable trade-off in the eyes of those who are so adamantly pro-life? That's the $21million question.
However, the U.S. is not paying for those "botched" abortions. Perhaps the money could be used to educate people with better options, such as adoption or sexual abstinence. Just as many lives, if not more, could be saved this way.
or perhaps birth control?
sexual abstinence is a pipe dream.