I keep seeing this brought up as if it's a point, but I don't think "it's not safe for the mother" was ever much of a point of debate.
I guess their point is if it is safe, it should be allowed. But even putting aside the fact that it's very much not safe for the baby, that's a ridiculous standard and I don't buy that they would actually subscribe to it for a second.
doctors need to be able to treat patients without government interference
Oh so now they're suddenly taking a libertarian stance, but only on this one single issue? These people can fuck right off.
I think the safe argument they always make is in comparison to the phantom "back alley" abortions that they say will happen by the millions without abortion clinics.
I keep seeing this brought up as if it's a point, but I don't think "it's not safe for the mother" was ever much of a point of debate.
I guess their point is if it is safe, it should be allowed. But even putting aside the fact that it's very much not safe for the baby, that's a ridiculous standard and I don't buy that they would actually subscribe to it for a second.
Oh so now they're suddenly taking a libertarian stance, but only on this one single issue? These people can fuck right off.
I think the safe argument they always make is in comparison to the phantom "back alley" abortions that they say will happen by the millions without abortion clinics.
These are the same people who said ivermectin, one of the safest drugs in existence, wasn’t safe.
Every institution is compromised.