Understand that the only reason why RFK Jr. walked back his position is because it might hurt his campaign. He's still ok with murdering babies just before birth.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Joe Biden was nominated by the democrats as their presidential nominee, I still have no clue what his stance is when it comes to abortion. He has yet to give a clear answer! I really couldn't care less about RFK!
@WizardofOz Biden is opposed to putting legal restrictions on abortion, he believes in a woman’s right to make informed decisions about her own body. Doesn’t that make more sense than “it should be left up to the states”?
@JPWhoo so then your saying a baby has no right to luve inside a womans body ?? Because if thats what yoir saying you and everyone else will not and would not be alive and be here. !
@Manneeds Yes, as I said before, no baby has a right to live in a woman’s body, it’s a privilege that can be revoked at any time for any reason. I and most other people in the world would still be here because our mothers freely chose to give birth to us, they were not forced to do so.
@BizSuitStacy As far as I know there is no legal statute that defines when personhood begins, but that doesn’t matter, it’s a distraction. Even if we assume the fetus is a person as much as you or me, it still doesn’t have the right to live inside another person’s body.
If you noticed my response to the OP I made some analogies to abortion. I’ll repeat one of them here.
Say Mr. Boddy is dying and desperately needs a kidney transplant. Colonel Mustard is a match, but he doesn’t want to donate his kidney. Is Colonel Mustard then a murderer for withholding his kidney, which would potentially save Mr. Boddy’s life? He had the opportunity to save Mr. Boddy’s life at no risk to his own life, so he should be obligated to take that opportunity, right?
Most people, even Republicans, even the so-called pro-life crowd, would agree that Colonel Mustard is not a murderer for withholding his kidney because Mustard’s right to make decisions about his own body supersedes Mr. Boddy’s right to continue living.
The same principle applies to abortion: the woman’s right to make decisions about whom may or may not live inside her womb supersedes the fetus’s right to continue living.
As far as I know there is no legal statute that defines when personhood begins
Correct...nor is there a statute defining when human rights are and are not applicable.
So EVERYTHING you've stated beyond that point is pure conjecture on your part.
And, you're wrong, as usual. If a baby didn't have the right to live inside that womb, there would be no need laws passed to legally terminate the pregnancy. The "right" is absolutely implied.
@BizSuitStacy Putting it in bold, italics, and all caps doesn’t make it right. I don’t see how my organ donation analogy is “conjecture”. Do you agree with most everyone else, including Republicans, including the so-called pro-life crowd that Mustard has a right to keep his own kidney?
If a baby didn’t have the right to live inside that womb, you would need laws passed to legally terminate the pregnancy.
Um, did you read that before you posted it? Maybe that was one of those things that somehow made sense in your mind but not out here. If a fetus didn’t have the right to live inside that womb, then obviously no law would be needed to legally terminate it because it didn’t have the right to be there anyway.
@DDaverde Hardy har har har. You must have no criticisms of his policies if all you can think of to say is how an 81 year-old man might not always make it to the bathroom.
