Very true. Now, if it’s them boys who get knocked up, I’m pretty sure moral standards would be more, shall we say, forgiving.

The disgusting sense of personal entitlement these anti-choicers have is appalling. One would think instead of hubris and invoking special privilege, they would have gained a sense of gratitude and humility in the face of the sacrifices their mothers made to afford them their existence. Their retort instead is to demean all women and demand they be relegated to a lower social status, to insult their own mothers in the process and to demand the blood and flesh of their wives, daughters, and sisters with so much snark and condescension as to elevate the conceptus of a rapist beyond that of the women whose bodies, lives, and liberties have been attacked.

These jokers can’t even fathom forgoing their own existence before they were aware of it, much less credibly claim to be willing to sacrifice their life for the person who gave it to them, much less anyone else. And we’re to believe they are great warriors, these trembling, scared, pearl-clutching cowards? No wonder they can’t lead a nation or determine the best course of action to preserve our lives and liberties; they don’t even know what the concepts are that they purport to defend. These are moral failures, and they wear them with pride and arrogance rather than shame. And like-minded cowards would vote for them. Appalling.

I’m not sure about Brownback, but most people on his side won’t take that position because they know the majority would utterly reject it. I’m sure they see this as pragmatism rather than what it really is: intellectual and moral incoherence.

I like how she assumes she would have been aborted, if abortion were an option for her biological mother. What does it say about her self-esteem that she leaps to this assumption? And what would it be like as a kid to learn “oh, I would have aborted you if I could have”?

Just because something is legal doesn’t make it mandatory. Only in totalitarian dictatorships and the lab in which I work ;) is “that which is not forbidden is mandatory” a fundamental principle.

My maternal grandparents were very active in Planned Parenthood. It just so happens all three of their kids were the result of unplanned pregnancies (whilst they were active in the movement). Does that make them hypocrits? Maybe a little … but the point is that just ’cause abortion is legal doesn’t mean all people pregnant by rape would abort — even people who are militantly pro-choice might, um, choose not to abort!

OTOH, Kennedey’s reasoning in that recent SCOTUS ruling, opens the door up for the opposite, nu? Supposing it’s bad for the mental health of women to carry fetuses conceived by rape to term — could the same SCOTUS which allowed an abortion procedure ban based on what it might due to the mental health of those poor wimins uphold a mandatory abortion requirement based on mental health concerns? Some say abortion is always immoral? Well, some of us say it’s immoral not to have an abortion under certain circumstances — would these anti-choicers be happy if a Jewish President pushed through a bill mandating abortions when the life of the mother-to-be was in danger?

Do these anti-choicers really think things through? And what does it say that the woman quoted just assumes she would have been aborted?

This “solution” of course assumes not only an availability of adoptive mothers but also a system that can handle it. My fiancee recently adopted a baby — and there were snafus galore in what should have been a relatively straightforward adoption. So imagine if the system were even more bogged down … anyway, how many anti-choicers are adoptive parents?