Fountains saidI'm not understanding the "big government" thing. To me, if anything, it's "big government" that a state would pass a law regulating what female bodied persons do with their bodies. But the thread kind of suggests (to me at least) that your reference to big government is in regards to the judge striking down the law.
Not if you define that a baby's life begins some time prior to birth, making it another human being needing protection under the law from being murdered just like everyone else. I would hope that "big government" doesn't include that everyone should be protected under the law from harm or being infringed on.
Is it a bit difficult to grasp this?
To be fair, if this were the case, then the law would/should make it a crime to have an abortion. To force a "killer" to see a biosigns reading before "executing" the child is an odd way to go about protecting the child.
At the moment, the right to an abortion is protected under the Constitution. To make a woman go through this dance (and raise costs by mandating unnecessary spending) to attempt to guilt her or make it harder to do what she has every right to do is paternalistic and, to the cognitive dissonance of tea partiers, big government.
So I actually add to the discussion as well, I must say this that we as gay men really have no say when it comes to this discussion. I mean its her fucking body guys, it adds a lot of crap going on that goes all cray cray with her.
Second, its not like the decision to have an abortion is an easy one, its very psychologically damaging to the women herself as it does go against biology, however that does not mean we should harass her even more, or try to add to those feelings she will all ready have.
Furthermore, not all children deserve to be born, I present exhibit A of my argument: