Quote:
Originally Posted by KSGregman
/offtopic
Not to sound antagonistic...but...wouldn't the freedom to "choose" also apply before or during the act that leads to an unwanted pregnancy? (Excluding cases of rape and incest, obviously.)
Seriously...why is it only a "choice" once pregnant? Wouldn't it make more sense to make that choice PRIOR to the act that leads to pregnancy?
This argument always makes me think about standing around arguing about the cows getting out instead of just closing the gate. *shrug*
/ontopic
Having said that, I don't understand the purpose of this law. It seems like a fairly heavy handed attempt by the Southern Baptist style bible thumpers in OK to brow beat vulnerable girls. *shrug*
|
< onofftopic >
Yes, that would make perfect sense. They call that "abstinence" and it is supported by much the same people who support measures like the one outlined in the story. It also works quite well, at least when people actually are abstinent, which it seems is not as often as its proponents would like. In fact it seems to be even less the case in their own back yards.
< offofftopic >