Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Then let me mention that I suspect the law was written to make a difference in the thousands and thousands of other cases that are slightly more "normal" (you know, the dead babies 'cuz someone was inconvenienced), and that I bet I can find horrific stories that have resulted from the granting of civil rights and liberties, (Dru, anyone?), or from liberal taxation-of-the-rich-'cuz-they-can-afford-it (remember the american boat industry?) or . . . pretty much any initiative taken for any cause, forever.
|
When you find those horrific stories, you post them. The pro-lifers promised me no one would be hurt by wait-and-consent laws. Turns out, that's not true. So I posted about it.
I'm pointing out that laws to protect the public mores have vast unintended consequences, especially when the legislature tells a doctor how to do em's job. And one-in-a-thousand-live-births isn't so rare that we shouldn't be disgusted. Minnesota had 68,035 live births last year. That means 68 Minnesotans had to go through this
exact same fact pattern so that some legislator could feel smug about saving one or two of the babies who do have brain stems because he made a pregnant woman feel bad and selfish for wanting to do something that --- last time I checked --- remains legal in this country. Glad you think those 68 women are just collateral damage. I think they're illustrative of the wrong-headedness of the policy. BTW, the other women in Minnesota seeking to terminate their pregnancies also have reasons why being told by a doctor that they're inflicting pain upon their children isn't such a nice thing. Maybe you could sit in on those sessions, and suggest that they're having the abortion as a matter of "convenience," rather than forcing doctors to say it on your behalf.
The fact that you would equate this anguish with taxation's effect on the American boat industry says more about you than it does about the issue.
