Originally Posted by TheCanadian
Yes, somehow resorting to an abortion because the timing was professionally inconvenient without giving the father of said baby a say in the matter, makes Evert a decent human being, right? But when Connors talks about it in his biography, that makes him an indecent human being, right?
I find this type of morality somewhat suspect.
There's a conflict of interest between the baby and the mother. Someone recently joked that if babies in the womb had guns, there would be far less abortions.
I'm not advocating for Evert. I am advocating for a woman's right for a make a very private medical discussion. Whatever reason Evert had for having an abortion, it was her decision to make. If you have a moral issue with that, don't have one.
Connors broke no laws disclosing Evert's abortion; and Evert broke no laws about having one. By as a poster commented "Jimmy is being Jimmy"; but when he didn't have to stones to discuss this with Evert while writing is bio or even take her feeling regarding the most private of matters, well yeah, I question whether Connors is a decent human being.