The second clause makes little sense.
All abortions are a tragedy. All casual abortions, mainly those used as a substitute for effective use of birth control, are a grievous violation of the right to life.
Abortions should be permitted for other reasons, including when the mother's life is endangered or when the fetus is not viable.
Pregnancies resulting from rape, while rare, involve complex moral dilemmas. In those cases, we should respect the privacy of the mother and allow her to decide the best outcome. We can take solace that some studies suggest most rape-induced pregnancies are carried to term.
The judiciary is to interpret and apply laws. Earlier planks also call for judicial restraint. Expecting the judiciary to pursue a social policy agenda is judicial activism, not judicial restraint. Liberalism is still liberal even when it benefits a conservative cause.
Mandating artificial sustenance is a violation of basic human rights. Withholding artificial sustenance may be merited when an unresponsive patient has no no chance of survival. Ultimately, this is a decision for the patient (as previously arranged in a living will) or that patient's spouse or family, not the government.
The mention of handicapped persons is unjustifiable. There is no credible movement to murder handicapped people by withholding nutrition.
On the 7 enumerated points:
Comments
Post new comment