| How sick do you have to be to flip through a calculus text and feel nostalgic?
Don't answer.
|
| |
| John is not worth a god damned fucking cent. Since when was it so hard to treat people as they deserved to be treated.
|
| |
| When you are pondering the court's most recent bombshell in the miserably cratered road that is the abortion controversy, ponder this.
In reading some feminist discussions I came across an interesting moral distinction between what a woman's morally legitimate claims could be. This person argued that as a woman could reasonably expect a severe amount of distress, disruption, pain, and restriction from an unwanted child, she necessarily had the right to be rid of the fetus. However, from this it does not follow that the woman has the right to exact the death of the fetus.
An interesting distinction, no? Especially when discussing second trimester abortions (those that the court ruling addresses). Its puts the impact of viability in an interesting light for, if a fetus is viable, then the right to destroy it is lacking and some manner of freeing the woman from the fetus must be pursued. Prior to viability, however, such an obligation might not exist.
However, one could simply argue that the woman must wait until the fetus is viable. I'm not sure that this follows, for the legitimate right to be free from the fetus exists equally as strong prior to viability as it does to post-viability.
Interesting thoughts.
P.S. From my limited reading, the Supreme Court ruling isn't as dangerous to abortion as it might be made to seem.
|
| |
| http://www.theodora.com/wfb/abc_world_fact_book.html
|
| |
