It still stands for "abortion". So, if anything, the connection between the organization and its legal objective of protecting abortion rights is more up-front, not less, than it was at the organization's beginning.
Your article is an interview with Nathanson. Again.
First, this argument is fundamentally about a difference in perception. He's talking about the removal of a (to quote Nathanson) "perfectly formed" fetus. What he neglects to mention is that the fetus has no forebrain for the first part of its gestation, and certainly nothing resembling a human brain until the third trimester. To appeal to the idea of human pain suffered by a human-shaped creature with less ability to form a thought than a bird has is deceitful.
To compare the prerogatives of the potential human to those of the actual one is ridiculous.
If Nathanson doesn't want to perform any more abortions, no one is twisting his arm. But he doesn't want freedom of conscience for himself, he wants the spotlight. He's an activist. He's moving his focus to a new and more exciting group, one that will praise and pet him as his former constituency did when they were struggling for legitimacy.
Regards--
Mary Anne
Off Topic » in reply to Re: a new identity, hummmm!
The first A in NARAL
The whole thread (41 posts)
- More on NARAL and its founder
- Dastardly. Criminal. Absolutely reprehensible.
- Re: a new identity, hummmm!
- Likewise in UK
- Re: a new identity, hummmm!
- Publius is right, plus thay've owned Kraft and many others for years n/t (n/t)
- Re: Altria -what is it?
- The first A in NARAL
- Re: The problem of pain
- Re: The problem of pain
- Nathanson
- "If you hold the position that a third-trimester baby can't feel pain, then I think we have reached an impasse in this argument."
- Re: The first A in NARAL
- Re: The problem of pain
