Sincerity always ads value to ones words. We had this conversation years ago and I remember you had not adopted yet. Now, all you have to do is come up with a plan to enforce abortion laws. You can't use murder laws as an example because: 1. No one is opposing murder laws. 2. The victim has a SS number and will be a missing person. unborn are off the radar and a short trip renders abortion laws useless. How to you address that issue?
And by most, you mean "none". I've literally met no such person. Zero. Zip. Not even one. Was it your intent to demonstrate that you can't be trusted?
I really cannot believe that there are actually people who think some clump of cells that lacks not only a brain, but even nary a single brain CELL can be called human, or anything else.
https://news.northeastern.edu/2021/08/03/vaccine-mandates/ "The Northeastern survey found the highest support for vaccine mandates among residents of Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, at 81 percent each. At least 70 percent of the public in another ten states―all Democratic-leaning―approve of a universal government vaccine mandate. Support was lowest in three Republican-leaning states―North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. The overall gap between Democrats and Republicans was the widest of any group in the survey. The chasm between the two parties did not budge between spring and summer, remaining firmly locked at a 39-percentage-point difference. Democrats overwhelmingly backed requiring vaccines while Republicans were narrowly opposed." I suppose you're now going to assert that these were all 'pro-life' Democrats...?
If a person has been saying the "abortion issue" is all about "states rights" and then they try to change the laws of states that have decided to keep abortion legal ... then they have to admit they have been lying all this time (much as many have lied when they said abortion laws wouldn't force raped women to carry their rapist's baby to term).
The abortion issue makes hypocrites out of followers of both parties. Devout partisans will never admit they were wrong.When you catch them in a lie, they move to "Its for your own good".
"Why nobody can trust pro abortion folks!" it's pro-choice as in each woman chooses for themselves, not you I or the government chooses for them I can't trust people that would force rape victims to have their rapists babies
LOL, the ignorance of pro aborts is in not realizing she already made her choice. Now you want to kill someone cause you don’t like the consequences of the initial choice. I say nope!
Murder is the appropriate category and appropriate analogy. You can’t just say I can’t use it without explaining a rational reason why. We have already agreed abortion is homicide so there it is! Btw the threshold to personhood is now a SS#? That is HILARIOUS!!!!
The question remains unanswered. I have been asking the same question for years and only one person attempted to answer. He at least put some thought behind it. You continue to avoid it because there is no way you can refute: Abortion laws cannot be enforced and have no benefit to society.
never met a pro-abort, only pro-choice, the right is anti-freedom, they want the government choosing for women
It has been answered, you are just expecting some answer to leads to 100% conviction rate. No crime has a 100% conviction rate! furthermore laws are meant to set standards for what behavior is admissible and inadmissible in our society. We can talk about difficulties in prosecuting a given crime, but that has nothing to do with whether or not that behavior is acceptable in our society.
They are interchangeable. Govt chooses to prohibit nearly all other homicides, that seems to be taking away freedom to you.
nope, they are not, be like saying all anti-choicers are pro-rapists cause some support forcing rape victims to have their rapists babies you can be against getting an abortion yourself and still be pro-choice
A mandate isn't forced vaccination. Considering all of the years of intense training they've had, pro-lifers really should be better at lying.
It appears that you would benefit from a going over, of a basic fact about humans, and about absolute statements. The first, is prone to foolishness, and it is generally a foolish thing to do, to assert the second. There is no reason to believe that there will not always be extremists, among us. So it is a ridiculous thing to do, to take an extremist perspective, and apply it to a broad swathe of people. When it is a legitimate reason for focus, and concern, is when that extremist position, is enforced over a large part of the populace. That brings us, first, to late term abortions. Your very own article, if you read it, would have told you that only 1% of U.S. abortions, take place at or after the 21 week mark (just past the midpoint, in the second trimester). And of this 1%, all or nearly all, are cases of either an endangering of the life of the mother, through some complication, or a situation of some abnormality, a birth defect, only being detected, later in the pregnancy. So, some clinic catering to these cases, is not tantamount, for practical purposes, with unrestricted, abortion on demand. 93% of abortions occur within the first 12 or 13 weeks, the first trimester, of gestation which, for the vast preponderance of those women, had not been the legal cutoff point. Therefore it is illogical to believe that loosening the law, would lead to any significant increase in late term abortions. Now though, I will top your claim, from the other side of the debate. To wit: many here have repeatedly said that abortion will never be completely outlawed, and that NOBODY was trying to have it flatly made illegal, or criminalized. But now there are legislatures which have done just that, have criminalized a medical practitioner's aborting a fetus or embryo, at any point, in pregnancy, such as Michigan, Oklahoma, Idaho, & now Tennessee. Others have placed their cutoff point when many do not even realize they are pregnant, the 6 week/ fetal heartbeat point, such as Texas, Georgia, and Ohio. And in a good number of these, there are no exceptions cut out, for cases of rape or incest. https://tennesseelookout.com/2022/0...y became the,the risk of criminal prosecution. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-ruling-states-a767801145ad01617100e57410a0a21d What this means, is that there is far more objective reason to strengthen protections for women, against what some abortion foes have said, is not ANYONE'S intention, than there is any need for protections for fetuses, to prevent late term abortions.
You're gonna have to backpedal a lot harder than that... recall I said: and you replied I can at least be 'trusted' to not conflate 'mandatory' with 'forced' in attempt to distract from having been so completely proven wrong by: https://news.northeastern.edu/2021/08/03/vaccine-mandates/ "The Northeastern survey found the highest support for vaccine mandates among residents of Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, at 81 percent each. At least 70 percent of the public in another ten states―all Democratic-leaning―approve of a universal government vaccine mandate. Support was lowest in three Republican-leaning states―North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. The overall gap between Democrats and Republicans was the widest of any group in the survey. The chasm between the two parties did not budge between spring and summer, remaining firmly locked at a 39-percentage-point difference. Democrats overwhelmingly backed requiring vaccines while Republicans were narrowly opposed." Neither I, nor the article I cited said anything about 'forced'. Only you said that, and only after I demonstrated that vaccine mandates were overwhelmingly a Democrat position, which strongly suggests, as I originally asserted, that there are many who claim to be 'pro-choice' when it comes to abortion but are happy to mandate, aka coerce (which is not necessarily 'force') vaccination. So try again.
I think you are out of touch with reality. You sound like your position is based on a Libertarian-oriented position. Well the reality is that most of those who side with being in favor of abortion do not hold the same ideology as you.
So you agree. A mandate is isn't forced vaccination. Meaning your argument collapses in a different way. If it's not forced vaccine, then it's nothing like a forced abortion ban. If pro-lifers just strongly suggest that abortion not be chosen, then the two situations would be the same. Is that the policy that you suggest pro-lifers adapt?
A mandate is not "just strongly suggest". Your disingenuousness is getting pretty ridiculous. The consequences for violation (in the context of vaccine mandates) can and have included losing ones job, healthcare, housing and custody of children, among other things. Basically an "overwhelming majority" of Democrats supported doing everything except using literal force to inject people with the vaccine. And that's only a technicality, since if you lose your job and refuse to leave, you will be forced from the building, if you stop paying your mortgage, you will be forced out of your home, and if you take your kids after losing custody you will be forced into prison for kidnapping. And that's only because no one actually conducted a survey to find out how many of them wanted the govt to inject people at gunpoint, so we can only speculate on that... But while we can't technically demonstrate anyone tried to 'force' vaccination, there sure was a lot of people who supported a hell of a lot of force behind the repurcussions for refusal for a lot of folks. But, again, I never said anything about 'forcing' vaccination. You did. I called it the same thing the government called it- mandatory. Any more disingenuous nonsequitors you wanna try? ...and before you wanna go on about abortion- I oppose using force against them as well. Abortion should be just as legal and uncoerced as refusing a vaccine. But then I'm actually pro-choice instead of just pro-abortion.
