Jump to content

France upholds right to "Not be born"


Guest $iLk
 Share

Recommended Posts

$iLk's Reading List: Read this and see what you think.

quote:

France debates right not to be born

A Paris court ruled last week that disabled children can sue doctors over not having aborted them.

By Nanette van der Laan

PARIS - The first thing doctors asked Willemijn Forest, after she gave birth last year to a baby boy diagnosed with Down syndrome, was whether she wanted to keep her child.

"After the delivery, they took him away immediately, assuming I did not want to see him anymore," says the Dutch woman who lives in Marseilles, the country's second-largest city. "I said of course I want to keep him. I was so appalled by their attitude."

These days, Forest, like many other parents here who have children diagnosed with mental disabilities, is no longer shocked.

Last week France's highest appeals court ruled that children with Down syndrome have a legal right never to have been born and could sue doctors that attended the pregnancy.

For parents like Forest, the ruling demonstrates a view, which she says is widespread in French society, that a disabled life is not worth living.

The judgment, which confirmed a previous ruling in a similar case, has caused a furor in France, sparking a national debate on a whole host of ethical issues.

In their Nov. 28 ruling, three judges said that a doctor had negligently failed to warn an expectant mother that pre-natal scans showed that her baby had the symptoms of Down syndrome. The baby, who was only identified as Lionel, was born in 1995. His mother argued that she would have aborted if she had been given a correct pre-natal diagnosis.

Although most in France agree that the parents should receive financial aid for Lionel's specialized care, many are offended by the nature of the mother's grievance: that her son had been allowed to be born.

The judges in Lionel's case decided that the doctor was "100 percent" liable for the cost of the care needed for the child, since the diagnostic error meant that the mother was not given the chance to abort. The court had already awarded damages of around $100,000, five years earlier. Last week's ruling ordered the sum to be substantially increased. The exact amount is to be announced at the end of January.

Parents of mentally disabled children who gathered outside the courthouse to hear the verdict, said they were outraged by the ruling.

"Certain judges still believe that it is better to be dead than to be handicapped," says Xavier Mirabel, spokesman for the Collective Against Handiphobia, a group that fights for rights for the disabled.

Mr. Mirabel says the most worrying aspect is that the ruling confirmed a similar decision by the same court last year. In November 2000, the court ruled that Nicolas Perruche - born severely disabled - should receive damages from his mother's doctor, who had failed to warn her of the dangers of rubella (also known as German measles) during pregnancy. That case immediately caused widespread consternation, but many thought the ruling was an exception.

Mirabel's Collective Against Handiphobia has since brought its own case, charging that the Perruche case amounted to a dysfunction of the justice system.

Though 54 percent of the French consider themselves Catholic, a nationwide poll last year by SOFRES, a leading independent polling agency, showed most respondents viewing abortion as justifiable. Legal abortion was introduced in 1975, with termination now allowed up to 12 weeks of pregnancy - and later, if there is a grave risk to the mother's health or if the fetus is diagnosed as suffering from a condition such as Down syndrome.

Roger Bessis, president of the French College of Echography (ultrasound scanning), says that new national statistics, due out shortly, will show that France carries out fewer abortions when genetic abnormalities are detected - because in France, unlike in other countries, there is no strict time limit for abortions.

"Doctors are not under pressure to terminate pregnancies when there is only slight doubt," he says. "We don't need to rush, so we can do more tests, and therefore have one of the most accurate rates of detection in the world."

Dr. Bessis says that, in Paris last year, 90 percent of prenatal genetic abnormalities were detected. In those cases, 8 percent of the mothers decided against abortion.

The Handiphobia Collective's Mirabel says he is concerned that the attention to the recent court cases has eclipsed other, more pressing issues. He says that, in northern France, 85 percent of parents with mentally handicapped children are sending them to specialized schools in Belgium, because the French system cannot accommodate them.

The cases have also alarmed doctors, who fear a growing number of lawsuits. Bessis says many specialists have already stopped carrying out prenatal scans and some are calling for a nationwide strike beginning Jan. 1.

"All of a sudden, the courts are deciding what is law. How can we accept this in a democracy?" he says. "The courts said the doctor was 100 percent liable, but everyone knows that medicine can never be 100 percent accurate. We do the best we can."

The French Roman Catholic church has called the rulings an insult to all families with disabled children. The bishop of Tours, Andr├® Vingt-Trois, president of the church's family committee said: "I think with great sadness of all families who have welcomed Down syndrome children, who have showered them with love and received great love in return. This ruling amounts to a declaration that such love was worthless."

The French government, which has kept mainly on the sidelines to date, is due to hold a parliamentary debate next week on the ethical and moral issues involved. Some politicians say the court hearings raised the question of eugenics (controlled breeding), while others maintain that the court awards had been made in recognition of a right to dignity.

On Wednesday, Bernard Kouchner, the health minister, said the case had left him "perplexed" and "ill at ease." Stressing the "value of every life," he said that a "handicapped life is not a pitiful one." But he added: "Nobody should question a doctor's medical responsibilities towards a mother, any harm done to her as a result of medical negligence, or challenge her right to have an abortion."

The minister for families, S├®gol├¿ne Royal, sees the ruling as acknowledging the right to justice for people with disabilities. But she says she fears it could be seized on by pressure groups opposed to abortion.


Am I the only one that believes liberalism is dangerous?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the French are more dangerous

""Certain judges still believe that it is better to be dead than to be handicapped,"

"For parents like Forest, the ruling demonstrates a view, which she says is widespread in French society, that a disabled life is not worth living."

This is disturbing. And its not a new idea either, I saw something similar in old newsreels from the 1940's, but I couldnt understand much of it 'cause they were in German.

People like that should take a look at Prof. Hawkins to see just how wrong they can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

This is disturbing. And its not a new idea either, I saw something similar in old newsreels from the 1940's, but I couldnt understand much of it 'cause they were in German.

Exactly.

quote:

I think the French are more dangerous

But don't think that our American Liberals are any different, we did after all have a man sue because he was circumsized as a baby and was forced to live a "sub-par" sex life. And Hillary Clinton and several other Democrats were cheering him on.

Come to think of it, maybe I should sue for lost foreskin! It would be just like that book about the Jew who wanted to cut off a pound of flesh as payment from a guy... the something merchant...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

It would be just like that book about the Jew who wanted to cut off a pound of flesh as payment from a guy... the something merchant...

The book/play is "The Merchant Of Venice" by one William Shakespeare, and the Jew's name is Shylock.

A woman recently jumped off a bridge with her Down's Syndrome child, because she couldn't cope any more. I think that women should be given the choice, and that they shouldn't be pilloried for whichever choice they make. If the choice is made to brind a disabled child into the world, then of course as much support should be given to that mother and child as possible.

There are four reasons a woman might want to terminate the pregnancy of a disabled foetus:

1) The woman may not want a child, whether disabled or not. Abortions happen for the sake of careers or lifestyle choices all the time. The issue here is the standard "pro life/pro choice" argument.

2) The woman may feel unable to bring up a disabled child due to socioeconomic reasons. Such a child is highly unlikely to be adopted, and if unwanted by the mother, well, what's the point?

3) The woman may wish to terminate the pregnancy because they fell it is morally irresponsible to bring a disabled child into the world. For every diabled person who is able to say "I was born disabled and my life is OK" there is probably at least one child born who is so severely disabled that they live a few days, weeks or months in utter agony and despair. If it could be guaranteed that the disabled child would live a long and fulfilling life, then doubtless many of the people having these abortions would make a different choice, but it can't be.

4) Pregnancy may be potentially very dangerous for the mother. Should she be forced to risk her life for the sake of an unborn baby, whether the child is disabled or not?

To insist that pregnancies are carried to term is also, by definition, insisiting that pregnant women become mothers. This is the main argument behind the Pro Choice movement. To allow women to have abortions is, if you accept that unborn children are alive, allowing murder. This is the main argument of the Pro Life movement. I would guess that most people would have a different Pro Choice/Life view on each of the four "reasons" given above, probably with the easiest to "sanction" being the fourth (danger to the mother), moving to the hardest to "sanction" being the first (not wanting a baby by personal choice).

For what it's worth, I'm Pro Choice in all four cases. My reasoning behind this view is that no-one should be forced to be a parent, because a parent who doesn't want to be one is probably not going to be a very good one, and at the end of the day, this is a very important point for the unborn child - the quality of the parenting they will recieve.

Regards,

Smiley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right to choose to be mothers? That's absurd. I'm sorry, but unless those women are in the extremely miniscule group of people that don't know that sex can impregnate, they've made the choice to "risk it". And they lost their gamble.

Now, I do believe that abortion should be an option for victims of rape or if there is danger to the mother.

Here's an article I wrote on the topic not too long ago:

Abortion – Legalized Irresponsibility

In this nation, there is only one law that allows harm to befall a human being. That is the law that protects the right to abort a child. Laws are supposed to protect people, especially the helpless (an unborn child). Who is the law protecting regarding abortion? The rights of people to be irresponsible? The pocketbooks of parents?

If I picked up a gun, pointed it at someone, and it accidentally discharged injuring or killing that person, should I be held accountable even in light of the fact that it was an accident? Even though I was simply being irresponsible?

Of course! Irresponsibility should not be protected nor encouraged. It should be scorned and left to its own devices. For it is from irresponsibility that responsibility is often formed.

You screwed up. You had a child because you were sexually irresponsible. Now, you are legally responsible for that child and his/her well being. Either you learn to practice the necessary responsibility or you are in violation of child-protection laws and are punished accordingly.

Yet, abortion is the opposite. You screwed up. You had a child because you were sexually irresponsible. Now, you are legally able to terminate your newfound responsibility and you are free to continue in your irresponsible habits.

And it is being suggested that making abortion illegal is an irresponsible act?

Then, I suppose, allowing irresponsibility to continue is a responsible act.

Yes, a woman should have a right to choose. Yes, she has that right to choose without having the right to choose an abortion. Abstinence is, by far, the most effective method of birth control.

And what about the child? The suggestion that an abortion may be the best option for the child is simply ludicrous. Sure, that child may be born into an unfriendly environment, but still, is killing it the solution? Don’t we have laws that actually punish people who try to escape their problems via death? We arrest and jail those who attempt to kill themselves.

We have laws that protect those who want to die. We have laws that protect those who have murdered others. We have laws that protect those who would be murdered.

Yet, for some reason, we have laws that allow a literal slaughter of children.

Go on. You tell a 5-year-old child that, 5 › years ago, it was totally legal to kill him or her. Yes, that child was not born yet. But that child was created.

It makes me wonder how many innocent faces this world is missing due to our laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

For what it's worth, I'm Pro Choice in all four cases. My reasoning behind this view is that no-one should be forced to be a parent, because a parent who doesn't want to be one is probably not going to be a very good one, and at the end of the day, this is a very important point for the unborn child - the quality of the parenting they will recieve.

I would consider being for it in 3 of your 4 cases. But if they don't want to be "forced to be a parent" then the girls should keep their legs shut, and the guys should keep their zipper up.

I am completely against abortion because they feel they "aren't ready" They should have thought of that when accepting the responsibility of what happens through sex.

I could possibly see abortion if it is related to health risks. I am completely against if abortion is used because "it isn't trendy to have a baby, but it is to have sex."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Now, I do believe that abortion should be an option for victims of rape or if there is danger to the mother.

So you believe that she can have an abortion if her pregnancy meets your criteria for an unacceptable pregnancy, yet she is incapable of having her own opinion on what those criteria are?

In my country, elective abortions are available up to a certain point in the pregnancy, and I doubt that anyone casually thinks "Whoops, pregnant again! Better schedule another abortion."

So if the choice is already a moral nightmare that is really only one person's to make, why bother introducing laws to make it more complicated?

Back on topic, the French ruling is interesting. If the doctor did not offer the mother abortion when it was a legal option open to her, then was he negligent? If so, was he negligent in his care of the child or the mother? This ruling says that he was negligent in the care of the child, which implies that an unborn child is legally a person, which further implies that abortion is possibly murder, which questions that legality of the abortion law in France, which then cyclicly affects this case all over again.

To quote my physics professor "Whenever you reach a paradox, you've proved something. All you need to then is find out which element of the paradox is fundamentaly wrong." Note that this is intended to be ironically understated.

I think, from a legal standpoint, the judgement is wrong, because if an abortion law exists, then the doctor has no duty of care towards the unborn child. But then the law in most western countries has degenerated into "how good a lawyer can you afford?" anyway.

It's minus five here tonight, so keep the anti-abortion flames coming - they're most welcome!

Smiley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree to allow abortions in cases where the person would not be able to lead a LIFE. Note, I said a life, not a normal life or a good life or whatever.

If the fetus has clear indications of mental problems I'd say yes, abortion is an option, but only IF the mother (who has the last say on this issue no matter what) agrees. If there is signs of severe physical handicaps (like, no arms and no legs or clear spinal problems) then its the MOTHERS choice.

I go back to Prof. Hawkin as an example. He led a normal life until his mid-20's when his affliction started to cripple his body. Had he been born paralyzed from the neck down to begin with (due to, say, spinal problems) I believe the chances of him becoming what and who he is today would be very slim.

Then comes the issue of the quality of life of both the child and the mother + family. A disabled child (mental or severe physical disability) require constant attention and a lot of resources ($$$). Thinking through cold logic, this would drag down the growth and chances of that family and that family's other healthy children (not be able to afford college because the family is in debt because of the less fortunate sibling,etc). Following that train of thought, its best not to bring such a child into the world.. where' he'd be likely to suffer more than others.

Yet cold logic dont apply to love, which is where things get complicated. Which is why I say its the mother's choice ultimately. If she wants to raise the child then that's that.

However, I do believe that these mothers should be given extensive, detailed information on what the child's life, and her life would be like, the challenges and obstacles.

Smiley and Aramike make great points above.

Wouldn't it be great if abortions were to be handled by some sort of judge & jury? You'd have to go before a court and give your reasons for the abortion. According to the information and evidence this court would have the option of allowing the abortion or, if its a healthy fetus, have the ability to transplant the baby to a mother that would want it (is this even possible on early stages?) or legally order the baby to be born and given in adoption (therefore protecting the child's life and taking the unwanted child from the biological parents).

Urgh, im rambling again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My stance on abortion in general:

Alright Smiley, you had 4 criteria that determine abortion; (I've posted my feelings in italics.

"1) The woman may not want a child, whether disabled or not. Abortions happen for the sake of careers or lifestyle choices all the time. The issue here is the standard "pro life/pro choice" argument.

If the woman does not want the child then she does not display the casual irresponsible attitude inherent in having unprotected consensual sex. If she want's to have sex with a man, an orgy with 50 men, whatever - she has to know the consequences if she does not take precautions. I think the burden is on her decision. Only in cases of rape, molestation, incest, etc. should it even be considered in this scenario. If she had willing consensual sex - she consented to the outcome.

2) The woman may feel unable to bring up a disabled child due to socioeconomic reasons. Such a child is highly unlikely to be adopted, and if unwanted by the mother, well, what's the point?

I agree with you here, and if a mother knows in advance what is going to be wrong with the child, it is her moral responsibility she must adhere to.

3) The woman may wish to terminate the pregnancy because they fell it is morally irresponsible to bring a disabled child into the world. For every diabled person who is able to say "I was born disabled and my life is OK" there is probably at least one child born who is so severely disabled that they live a few days, weeks or months in utter agony and despair. If it could be guaranteed that the disabled child would live a long and fulfilling life, then doubtless many of the people having these abortions would make a different choice, but it can't be.

I agree with you. But it kind of goes along with #2 as well. It's the mother's moral responsibility to make this decision.

4) Pregnancy may be potentially very dangerous for the mother. Should she be forced to risk her life for the sake of an unborn baby, whether the child is disabled or not?"

No she shouldn't be forced. If it becomes a health issue, it is her moral responsibility.

I'm not advocating the legislation of morality - I am however advocating the use of common sense. Only in circumstances of dire medical need should tax dollars be used to fund these abortions. If a girl get's pregnant by her boyfriend, and her boyfriend dumps her the next day - tough luck. She should have thought of that, and should have discussed the possibility with her boyfriend beforehand.

In NO circumstances should a doctor or the government make the call on abortions, except to deny them to those who do not need them. It is up to the woman whether she can accept it morally if her child is going to be diseased or if she is at risk.

So I'm for abortion only when it is in the best interests of the physical and mental health of mother and child. If one or the other is in danger, then it should be an option.

If neither is in danger - the pregnancy should continue full-term, at which point the mother can make the decision to give it up for adoption.

For an extra learning experience, we could make the mother's who are going to give the child up for adoption do without tax funded pain medication throughout the experience. Then they won't be so quick to allow things to get stuck in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


So you believe that she can have an abortion if her pregnancy meets your criteria for an unacceptable pregnancy, yet she is incapable of having her own opinion on what those criteria are?

You mean, you DON'T see the difference in someone getting pregnant as a result of their OWN actions as opposed to being a result of something they could not control?

Please, that is the most absurd thing I've ever read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

You mean, you DON'T see the difference in someone getting pregnant as a result of their OWN actions as opposed to being a result of something they could not control? ...

I can see the difference, I just don't think that the conditions of the conception are relevant to the future wellbeing of the mother and child

quote:

... Please, that is the most absurd thing I've ever read.

Hyperbole - gotta love it!

Examining your argument from another viewpoint, this hypothetical woman has proved to be irresponsible. Therefore make her keep the child because what society needs is a large number of irresponsible parents who don't want their children.

Making her have the child will not make her love it. We have laws to protect against that? Well, yes and no - we have laws that might get around to protecting the child if the lovelessness becomes extreme.

This hypothetical woman is so depressed at having this child that she did not want, that one night she gets roaring drunk and kills herself and the child in a fit of depression. Who did you help?

Smiley

[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: SmileyMan ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is going to blow everyones mind, I am 100% Pro-Choice up to the first Trimester. PERIOD!!

After that though, the mother better be on her deathbed.

Yep, I am conservative, and Pro-Choice, go figure!! LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smiley, I don't think he's saying to make her keep the child, but to actually have it and give it up to those hundreds of thousands of couples who are unable but willing to have a child of their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


I can see the difference, I just don't think that the conditions of the conception are relevant to the future wellbeing of the mother and child

So you're saying the child has greater well-being by being dead than alive?

quote:


Hyperbole - gotta love it!

Get used to it -- I'm good at that.

quote:


Examining your argument from another viewpoint, this hypothetical woman has proved to be irresponsible. Therefore make her keep the child because what society needs is a large number of irresponsible parents who don't want their children.

So, then after birth a parent should be allowed to "abort" her child for well-being purposes as well...

No dice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

Smiley, I don't think he's saying to make her keep the child, but to actually have it and give it up to those hundreds of thousands of couples who are unable but willing to have a child of their own.

Before we carry on, I ought to point out that I am very pro adoption personally, but I am also very liberal with a small "l" and think that adults should be treated as such, and allowed to make choices in matters where, frankly, it's nobody elses business.

And in case you doubt my (admittedly out-of-the-blue!) statement that I am pro-adoption, my wife is an adoptee, and when I was younger, my girlfriend became pregnant, carried the child (a little girl) and put her up for adoption, throughout which I supported her. So somehere out there is an 11-year old girl who is half me, and the fact that she might come and find me one day totally freaks me out.

Also, and this especially applies to teenage pregnancies, many are carried to term with the intent of adoption, but the girl sees a little baby in their arms that has been part of them for nine months, and suddenly doesn't want to give them up.

[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: SmileyMan ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

So you're saying the child has greater well-being by being dead than alive?

I'm not that what I wrote said that, but here goes...

You are drawing the line of well-being at "being alive". A similar argument is used to oppose euthaniasia, so please forgive a little analogy.

Now, we can't ask unborn foeti whether they want to live as a badly handicapped person, or in a slum ghetto with a drug-addict prostitute for a mother. But we can ask grown adults whether, in the event that some circumstances left them in a permanent vegatitive state, or with a illness so debilitating that their life would be a constant burden on their loved ones, whether they believe they would rather be killed in a humane manner. Personally, I would never want to be in the state where I am nothing but a useless lump of meat being kept alive for no reason. Turn me off, please. But that's my choice. You might feel differently.

Now, drawing my rather wonky parallel with the topic, imagine we were able to talk to an unborn foetus and ask "When you are born, you are going to be unable to control movement, unable to express yourself in any meaningful way, depend entirely on other people that you love for your existence. You have the option of carrying this through, or you can die now. Which is it to be?" Now the foetus might answer one way or the other, but the point is that it would be their choice, not ours.

The unborn baby has no facility to make that choice. We have no right to. The only other person with a stake in the whole thing is the mother, so why not let it be solely her decision? Given that she would be the largest influence in the childs life, so its sense of social responsiblity would be largely modelled on her own, it is not unreasonable to assume that the child, when fully grown, would have the same response as its mother does now. So let her make the decision on behalf of the baby, free from the imposition of our own personal views.

My definition of "well-being" is rather fuzzily around the point where someone wants to live more than they want to stop living. Which is subjective and inidividual, strengthening my argument above.

quote:

So, then after birth a parent should be allowed to "abort" her child for well-being purposes as well...

Murder? No. Put up for adoption? If it is in the best interests of the mother and child, why not?

quote:

No dice.

Read the thread on paper/board vs. computer games then!

Smiley

[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: SmileyMan ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am naturally a very opinionated person, but when it comes to the subject of abortion..I REFUSE TO TOUCH IT, for i am a man and will never have to deal with it...personally since this women will ONLY truly affect women i think all men should shut the hell up on this and sop trying to influence a women's decision. Womien need to be presented with the facts and make the decision themselves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JJ,

That is one of the most common sense approaches I have ever heard.

Now if only the other 95% of the men felt that way, this would not be a problem at all.

Very good approach!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


personally since this women will ONLY truly affect women i think all men should shut the hell up on this and sop trying to influence a women's decision.

Are you KIDDING? *Looks over at daughter*

Are you telling me that abortion only affects women? *Looks over at 13 month old daughter again*

It saddens me to think that, just months before she was born, my daughter could LEGALLY be killed by her mother (although she would never do that, but that's beside the point).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, why don't we think about the root cause of this controversy.

No, it's not morality. It's not the mother. It's not the father. It's not the "murder". It's not the baby.

I strongly believe that abortion should be illegal EXCEPT in the case of RAPE. Here's why:

By having sex, the woman chose to have the child to begin with.(and the man, but the "right to choose is based on women's right to choose") Both parties had a CHOICE and an AGREEMENT to have SEX. No, contrary to popular belief, although it is a good thing, sex is not needed to live like food and water, and thus unless the situation is rape, the woman has a choice on whether or not to have sex. The entire abortion controversy boils around the idea of the woman's right to choose. Fine, if the woman definitely doesn't want to have a kid, she shouldn't have sex. If she wants to have sex, but doesn't want to have kids, get on some sort of birth control method, and realize that getting pregnant is still occasionally possible, and be ready to LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS. Human life or not, you are killing a being at the point of having an abortion, and there's enough of a human life in a fetus to give presumption that just because the mother was STUPID ENOUGH to have sex when she DIDNT WANT A BABY, she should have to live with her actions.

(The only reason I focused on women in this is because men have no right to stop a woman's abortion, even if he wants the kid. So the man doesnt factor into the choice to begin with)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by JJ:

I am naturally a very opinionated person, but when it comes to the subject of abortion..I REFUSE TO TOUCH IT, for i am a man and will never have to deal with it...personally since this women will ONLY truly affect women i think all men should shut the hell up on this and sop trying to influence a women's decision. Womien need to be presented with the facts and make the decision themselves

Alot of women say it has nothing to do with men, until its time to collect the maintenance check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This morning some Frensh deputies put to examination a law to forbid such absurd trials

(heard this on France Info radio before going to work). A child will never be able to sue anyone just because he was born.

Then I am personnaly not a pro-choice, but I will politically fight for it to be a legal right. Even if it is paid with my tax money.

I am not only an individual, but a member of a nation. If I do not agree with the way my tax money is spent, then I will vote for someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...