Attempted Voter Manipulation By The Democrats

[liam]

What's to defend?...I think it's wrong for a woman to decide to kill an unborn child for the sake of convenience.

You're making a statement about the moral permissibility of an action, you have to defend that standpoint and 'I think it is wrong' is not a valid defence of advocacy of anything that should be thrust onto others. It's not convenience, its often a genuine financial and lifestyle choice, better than bringing a baby into a poor family which is unable to support it.

I am opposed to Planned Parenthood providing unrestricted abortions on demand for any reason beyond the scope of saving the life of the mother and in cases of rape and incest. I would defund Planned Parenthood of all Federal money and let it stand on private contributions.

Oh really? a conservative republican would advocate privatisation?

Yes, sometimes they fail, and it's known that contraceptives aren't fully reliable. But still the individuals knowing that risk is responsible for their own, ( both the mother and the father), actions and has the responsibilty of providing for a baby.

Accidents happen and to claim that individuals are responsible for things beyond their control such as the failure of a contraceptive pill is absolutely absurd (also, you can't use a comma before and after a bracketed sentence, only within it, because bracketed text is separate from the body by definition). I accept that there is some level of responsibility involved but they acted responsibly when they chose contraception (if they did, but that will be addressed in a minute). There is a conscious choice involved, yes, but it is not an immoral one and your own prejudice is no reason to blindly advocate a civil policy which is completely impractical and without resonable justification (thus far)

You and other supporters of unrestricted access to abortions need to defend your positions.

I never claimed to be a supporter of unrestricted abortion, I have made no claim other than that your claims are wrong and I have just defended that claim. You are assuming too much about my view without receiving it, that is never a wise policy to adopt. My position, while I do not advocate it entirely, but only as a starting point for debate, is that the choice to act in a safe, protected way is enough. There needs to be contingency and you are assuming that an unborn child is completely deserving of ethical consideration, you need to defend this also.