Of course, as the son of an OB/GYN, he should know about the vast amounts of diseases that can kill a newborn within a few days, like Harlequin-type ichthyosis. He should also be vaguely aware of the stillbirth rate (about 1 in 160, according to this source). He should also know about other genetic diseases that cause slow, painful deaths such as Tay-Sachs. He should also know about just how assfucking expensive the care can be for the few years that those kids can be "alive" (if one can call being in such pain, barely able to move, going to die by age 4, alive). It seems to me that, assuming that complete prevention and eradication or cure of these diseases are impossible (and until such time as they are able to be prevented/cured if my assumption is wrong), the ethical thing to do would be to allow for abortions in these circumstances (and others including rape and other fatal diseases, not including Down's Syndrome [unless the disease is so severe as to be swiftly fatal], and taking into consideration the ability of the family to care for such a child), rather than outlawing abortions full-fucking-stop. The main idea is, I think we can all agree, would be to make abortions safe, affordable, and, above all else, extremely fucking rare. I'm talking shiny starting Pokémon rare. Four-leaf-clover rare. By outlawing abortions, you only take them underground. Remember the disaster for the country that was Prohibition? You outlaw abortion, you get rid of the safe and affordable part, but do NOTHING about how common it is. If you want abortion to stop, for as possible as it is to even be stopped, you're going to have to teach your kiddies about a little thing called "contraception", and you're also going to have to invest a metric fuckton more into health and medical research than you currently are, so that we can both bring down the stillborn rate and come as close to eliminating genetic and neonatal disease as much as possible. Outlawing abortion will. Not. Fucking. Help. That merely treats the symptom, not the actual fucking disease, you stupid dickshitting assholes.
From "Rape, Abortion, Murder, and Other General Nasty Ambiguities: Addendum":
"But it's against GAWD'S LAW!" I hear you complain. Fucking irrelevant. This is the United States. As much as you dominionist theocratic fuckwits may want to believe otherwise, our laws are not based on the bible or the christian faith, and we are not - repeat, fucking NOT - a Christian Nation."But 95% of this country is Christian! And so were the Founders!"In both cases, so fucking what? Firstly, having a christian majority only makes this a "nation of christians" and not a "christian nation". I want you to think about the difference between these two phrases and what they imply. There's a law in this country, it reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This does not simply apply to whatever specific one of the 20,000+ branches of christianity you personally belong to, and not just to every branch of christianity, but to all religions, and to the nonreligious. That is how the founders wrote it, and that is how we interpret it today. It protects us all, or it protects NONE of us.Also, you should stop listening to David Barton and his ilk: if we WERE under biblical law in this country, he would be stoned to death for his repeated lies about the founding of this country."B-but..." SHUT YOUR DUMBASS FUCKING FACE AND LET ME FINISH!!!As for religious liberty, not all religions believe abortion is murder in all cases. Jews, for example, believe that, should the fetus threaten the health of the mother, it should be treated as a parasite. Banning all abortions across the board would violate their religious liberty, not to mention put several thousand (if not million) mothers at risk.