Why do we need to reexamine this issue?
As JJ points out, things ain't broke.
I don't think #fetushists get how hard it would be to justify a new law after 24 years of outrageously successful #LawlessAbortion #m312
— JJ (@jjhippie) May 26, 2012
(Doncha just love #LawlessAbortion? Make it trend!)
The only non-glurgey hemi-demi-semi-quasi reason the Wankers can come up with is that the law is based on an old definition of 'human being', which in this context -- the Criminal Code, mind -- equals 'person'.
Old. That's all they got.
Let's help them here. Some old laws are bad. But they're bad not because they're old but because there have been scientific or social developments. Or they're bad because they are inefficient, slow, cumbersome, expensive, etc.
Have there been scientific developments in 400 years? Of course.
Do they affect human reproduction? Yep. It's much safer. A little understanding of germ theory goes a long way in reducing maternal and neonatal mortality.
But apart from some technological tinkering, reproduction is still pretty much egg meets sperm and we're off! Until it stops or is stopped.
Biology, aka sex and reproduction, pace Dean Del Mastrobato, hasn't changed in 400 years.
Have there been social developments? Yep. But none -- such as women's rights, LGBT rights -- that works to the Wankers' advantage here.
So, is this 'old' law bad because it's slow or expensive or wasteful or just plain stoopid?
I haven't seen any arguments along those lines.
Nope. That's it. That's all they got.
Old.
And maybe it hasn't been changed in 400 years because it's straightforward and practical. You know -- successful.
0 Yorumlar