"women's issues'' such as abortion were below the radar screen of the founding fathers and not picked up until the mid 1800s when the AMA pushed to render abortion illegal. Prior to that it was not regulated at all. Moreover, she said that no enforcement really kicked in until the 1940s.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
"Strict constructionists" should support legal abortion
According to Christine Stansell, professor of American History at Princeton,
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Why should strict constructionists support a woman's "right" to end the life of her innocent unborn child? How is that Constitutional? What makes an unborn child less human?
One of the best bumper stickers I've ever seen goes like this:
Liberals: Tough on fetus', soft on terrorists.
Why is it that liberals wouldn't think twice to terminate the life of an innocent unborn child, but would fight to keep Osama Bin Laden imprisoned for life?
"Liberals: Tough on fetus', soft on terrorists."
Yes, and conservatives are so tough on terrorists. That's why they gave them Iraq as a nice new place to play in.
"Why is it that liberals wouldn't think twice to terminate the life of an innocent unborn child, but would fight to keep Osama Bin Laden imprisoned for life?"
A fetus is not an innocent unborn child, but nevertheless, most people who have abortions do think more than twice about it.
And how many liberals have you asked? I haven't seen data on this.
But I think if you asked most liberals-including this one-they'd say Bin Laden should be tried and if found guilty, shot in the back of the head on network television.
That's one of the reasons we were sorta kinda bummed when Bush gave up the search for him. Especially when he decided to occupy a country that was of no threat to us whatsoever instead.
Some of us are funny that way. We think we should have gone after the guy who attacked us. Not help him by creating a training ground for his troops.
Yes, we're funny that way.
Post a Comment