To: All
To: Cincinatus' Wife; onyx; Hunton Peck; Diana in Wisconsin; P from Sheb; Shady; DonkeyBonker; ...
Mother Jones Magazine attempts to explain Scott Walker’s view on abortion. The trouble is, it makes perfect sense. Mother Jones’ cynicism is misplaced.
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
To: Cincinatus' Wife
In other words, I just didn't have my cynicism meter turned up high enough. When Walker said there are always "alternatives" that can protect the life of the mother, he was only talking about true abortions. He wasn't talking about medical procedures that kill the fetus only as a side effect. Those aren't true abortions, so they're not part of the class of procedures for which there are alternatives. Yeesh. If this is really the explanation, it takes political misdirection to a new level.
Only because you skipped the most critical element of the equation - MORALS. As soon as someone with morals who values both the mother's and baby's lives reads the explanation, it makes 100% sense. Only an unethical, self-absorbed fool could read that and be confused or think it is a "political misdirection".
5 posted on
08/11/2015 5:55:37 PM PDT by
Tamzee
(Man is not free unless government is limited. ~~~ Ronald Reagan)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
It was a stupid gotcha question to ask Walker.
6 posted on
08/11/2015 6:51:17 PM PDT by
Impy
(They pull a knife, you pull a gun. That's the CHICAGO WAY, and that's how you beat the rats!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson