So apparently Chile isn’t very democratic not because two childhood friends of wealthy politically connected families are the front runners for the Presidency [elite oligarchy anyone?], but because there isn’t widespread and easy access to abortion.
Check this out.
I stopped reading at- “South America is overwhelmingly Catholic and abortion is generally illegal, but most countries allow exceptions for rape, and in cases involving the health of mother and fetus.”
I’m pretty sure all abortions involve the health of the mother and fetus; and I’m pretty sure none of them are performed to improve the health of the fetus.
Ah, the latest slaughterfest is about to erupt.
Oh. I thought this was going to be about limiting access to murdering your unborn child, not about expanding it.
I’m a little to optimistic I guess. :-/
That was my initial take on it as well.
Michelle Bachelet was president in Chile from 2006 - 2010 and abortion was not legalised, so have her views on abortion changed from that time or did she push for abortion legalisation and it did not happen? Chile has come a long way in respecting life and has been a leader in the world in having an abortion ban and if Bachelet is elected, they are going go backwards in upholding the dignity of life
Re the title of the OP.
What is in a word?
Are the harshest abortion laws the ones that result in the deaths of more human beings, or are the harshest laws the ones that result in the least amount of deaths?
All I can do is shake my head. I always thought that advancing the rights of women involved better education, equal pay for equal work, and fighting domestic violence, discrimination and sexual harassment. Why is it suddenly now about abortion and nothing else?