![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was wondering...
If the concept of having a child "out of wedlock" only applies (in the minds of the folks who actually care about this stuff) to the moment the mother gives birth to the child, essentially giving the couple upwards to 9 months to make amends and prevent their child from being called a bastard, then why isn't that same lax in standards applied to abortions?
Of course, this is completely rhetorical. I already know that the answer is that nothing about the thoughts in the minds of the folks who actually care about this stuff is ever remotely consistent, unless you count being consistently inconsistent - a description I've used for decades now to describe my bowling style.
If the concept of having a child "out of wedlock" only applies (in the minds of the folks who actually care about this stuff) to the moment the mother gives birth to the child, essentially giving the couple upwards to 9 months to make amends and prevent their child from being called a bastard, then why isn't that same lax in standards applied to abortions?
Of course, this is completely rhetorical. I already know that the answer is that nothing about the thoughts in the minds of the folks who actually care about this stuff is ever remotely consistent, unless you count being consistently inconsistent - a description I've used for decades now to describe my bowling style.
