Planned Parenthood's former president says she was instructed to say 'abortion' in every interview.

And no abortions are prevented.

 

That's your assumption.

 

You're assuming that if elective abortion became illegal, there would be just as many abortions as there are now.

 

Sure, but again, IF murder was legal, I wouldn't commit murder. Would you?

 

Yeah, what I mean is that IN A WAY we are controlled by our laws, but you're talking about loosing control of our bodies.

 

If a fetus is aborted, is there no body?

Also, there doesn't need to be a body in order to convict someone of murder.

Then explain why the Constitution is FULL of morals.

Yes, they do it because they are simply IMMORAL!

 

Yep, just like people have the option to get an abortion even if abortion became illegal.

 

Its a fair assumption considering the challenges you were unable to address.

 

I have already responded to your so called 'challenges' here, but you chose to ignore it: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...very-interview.590459/page-13#post-1072863542

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
AND YOU said : """Their behaviour should NOT be at all controlled."""


The POINT is that you think taking away options is NOT being controlled....and it IS !


You seem a little confused

No, I'm not talking about what YOU say I'm talking about , I said what I'm talking about:

AND YOU said : """Their behaviour should NOT be at all controlled."""


The POINT is that you think taking away options is NOT being controlled....and it IS !


You seem a little confused

 

LOL, a "scenario" isn't a fact.

If one pays for a crime, participates in a crime, they are committing a crime. DUH

 

Depends what you mean by "behaviour."

 

There wouldn't be sufficient 'mens rea' to charge a woman over abortion. This is normally when you ungracefully pull out of debate!

 

LOL, quit waffling. YOU didn't define "behaviour"...

FoxHastings said: ↑
AND YOU said : """Their behaviour should NOT be at all controlled."""


The POINT is that you think taking away options is NOT being controlled....and it IS !


You seem a little confused AND DESPERATE



No, I'm not talking about what YOU say I'm talking about , I said what I'm talking about:

AND YOU said : """Their behaviour should NOT be at all controlled."""


The POINT is that you think taking away options is NOT being controlled....and it IS !

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
LOL, a "scenario" isn't a fact.

If one pays for a crime, participates in a crime, they are committing a crime. DUH

No, this is where you NEVER can prove there would be "" sufficient "mens rea" to let women off the hook for committing a crime..

...is that what anybody who hires a hitman claims????? And do they get away with it???

 

The question was how you would enforce abortion laws. You said:

Medical tourism - people should be free to get healthcare wherever they wish.
Abortion drugs - are these really all that common? If they are, then why is surgical abortion so common?
Black market abortions - Just like the black market gun sales. this should be controlled. Anyone involved would be severely punished.

There is nothing here that would prevent a single abortion. It does contradict your claim that the patient would not be a criminal. (Bold) Comparing it to gun laws also reveals the ugly fact that it only causes harm. Gun laws have been providing killers with easy victims for years.

Now we are back to only catching a few poor women dying from infection because they couldn't afford to travel from the Abortion Free Zone you created. You will not be able to demonstrate how abortion laws could be enforced or how they would benefit society.

There are thousands of children that will never see the inside of a permanent, loving home. How many have you adopted?

 

I never claimed that it WOULD prevent a single abortion! What WOULD prevent abortion I think, would be banning elective abortions. After all, not EVERYONE is going to become a medical tourist or get a black market abortion. Your argument is based on the idea that if elective abortion became illegal, there would be just as many abortions as there are now. That not one single woman would simply decide to have the kid.

How is the law against murder enforced?

 

Sane women don't kill their kids. This is normally when you ungracefully pull out of debate!

 

It's of consequence when they lie about it and say it's not as big a part of their businesses it is.

The only reason to lie about it in downplay it is because you think it's wrong and you don't want people knowing that you do it more than you do.

If they didn't think this they would be proud of the real numbers.

It's kind of like why alcoholics anonymous is anonymous it's because it's not effective.

 

Now that you have removed "behavior" I can agree with that. Now do you think that it's a problem that we are controlled by laws?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
No, this is where you NEVER can prove there would be "" sufficient "mens rea" to let women off the hook for committing a crime..

...is that what anybody who hires a hitman claims????? And do they get away with it???

We aren't talking about kids, we're talking about abortion and no kids are involved...you are SQUIRMING AS USUAL, twisting on the hook , trying to duck the issue AS USUAL


FoxHastings said: ↑
No, this is where you NEVER can prove there would be "" sufficient "mens rea" to let women off the hook for committing a crime..

...is that what anybody who hires a hitman claims????? And do they get away with it???


UNANSWERED

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
The POINT is that you think taking away options is NOT being controlled....and it IS !

What? Removed behavior ?...what? Behavior wasn't in that statement ...that was

your ""Their behaviour should NOT be at all controlled."""

 

I did not argue abortion laws would result in the same number of abortions; I do not believe the reduction would be the result of such laws. Abortion rates are already declining without government interference.

You are the one defending the position that abortion laws would benefit society and so far, you have not been able to demonstrate that to be true. Perhaps one single woman would have the baby, but the "If it only saves one life" argument was used by gun control groups that create laws that only provide killers with easy victims.

What about the thousands of children that will never see the inside of a permanent, loving home? Did their little lives lose value after they took their first breath?

 

How is the law against murder enforced?

 

So then what would the reduction be the result of if not a ban on elective abortion?

Why not more than just one?

No. Why the hell would their lives lose value?