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

So, you think it's okay for pro-lifers to harass pro-choicers? Why is that?

You could rationalize just about anything.

 

I agree with the gist of your post. No, I don't think anyone should be harassed for their views but why does the left lie and say that it all comes from the right when it come from both sides?

And yes, people can rationalize anything, such as using women's rights as justification for murder.

 

Why do you do that?

 

They didn't make the mifepristone and misoprostol.

 

So if mifepristone and misoprostol were the only form of abortion available, would women have lost the right to their body if all other forms were banned?

 

Well if it's not a person, then it shouldn't override the mother's rights if the mother wants an abortion. The mother's rights should take preference.

 

I replied to that already. Abortion rates have been declining with no government interference. You have yet to describe how using government might would prevent a single abortion or benefit society. If there is no benefit, there should be no law.

 

There are thousands of children that will never see the inside of a permanent, loving home. The concern for human life appears to stop the moment the baby takes a breath and effort is required. Abortion laws are not from a position of concern for human life. There are those that go beyond wearing a pro-life T-shirt and make a difference.

Since I am not insisting that my beliefs are forced on others, the number of children I have adopted is irrelevant.

 

Because I think their motivation is honorable even if I think some of them go too far with dishonest arguments (like the claim a six-week-old fetus feels pain).

 

So what?

 

Sure, because mifepristone and misoprostol may not be the best choice for a woman.

 

I think it's not a person at 8 1/2 months, but I don't think it should be aborted if it can be delivered.

 

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

 

I don't know why they are dropping.

 

If murder became legal, but murder rates declined with no government interference, you would still think that murder should be illegal wouldn't you?

You have yet to describe how using government would prevent a single murder or benefit society. If there is no benefit, there should be no law.

 

And yet you say that there would be a reduction?

 

Diversions are for those lacking confidence in their ability to defend their position. Stick to the topic.

No. I said there is a reduction and it is not the result of government interference.

 

No, you're not applying your standard consistently. You say that there should be no ban on abortion because abortion rates have been declining with no government interference. Yet you do not apply the same standard for any law which currently exists.

 

Why not more than just one?

No. Why the hell would their lives lose value?

 

There are violent morons all over. Young men in particular are prone to ideologically driven violence, especially when assembled in large numbers. See January 6th, see Charlottesville, see BLM riots. White nationalists are hardly peaceful. They go prepared to make trouble. They plan and organize to do so.

 

You're distracting. The REAL concern for human life is that the human life is at least allowed to be born, since in this unjust world that is what is required before it is illegal to kill them.

That's no different to saying that murder laws are not from a position of concern for human life.

The ones who you think do not make a difference are irrelevant to whether or not elective abortion should be illegal.

Well part of your "beliefs" is that unwanted BORN children cannot be legally killed by their parents. So how many do you adopt?

 

Fact is, most everywhere you go where White Nationalists are protesting something, they are the ones who need police protection from the other side.

 

You are incorrect. I oppose all unnecessary government interference in our lives. My position is consistent regardless of the party pushing the interference.

You have not demonstrated how you would achieve just one. Their lives don't lose value, except for in the minds of those claiming to care about them when they are in the womb only to turn their backs on them once they take their first breath. Will you dedicate 25+ years of parenting, making them feel loved, cherished, and cared for? Those that do are walking the walk. For those not willing to make a long-term commitment, they can foster, or mentor a child.

As I pointed out above, there is a difference between REAL concern and the appearance of concern. While some people step up and give these children a permanent loving home, others are wearing a pro-life t-shirt and waiting for the government to take care of it. Between these two extremes are all levels of concern.

I do admire how you shifted the conversation from how you would enforce the laws.

 

No, you're not applying your standard consistently. You say that there should be no ban on abortion because abortion rates have been declining with no government interference. Yet you do not apply the same standard for any law which you agree with which currently exists. As in, that which you would say is NECESSARY government interference in our lives. Laws such as murder.

Just as you have not demonstrated how the law against murder achieves one saved life.

Which is no different to pro-choice people who decide not to foster or adopt unwanted children. One easy solution would have been for the parents to simply kill their unwanted child, instead of the child going into the foster/adoption system, but that pro-choice person would think that should be illegal. Double standard.

 

That's no different to saying that murder laws are not from a position of concern for human life.

The ones who you think do not make a difference are irrelevant to whether or not elective abortion should be illegal.

Well part of your "beliefs" is that unwanted BORN children cannot be legally killed by their parents. So how many do you adopt?